House of Commons
Wednesday, January 30, 1935
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Private Business
Ascot District Gas and Electricity Bill,
"to convert the existing capital of the Ascot District Gas and Electricity Company; to authorise the raising of additional capital; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Beckenham Urban District Council Bill,
"to confer further powers on the urban district council of Beckenham in regard to their electricity undertaking, and to make further and better provision for the improvement, health, local government, and finance of their district; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Blackpool Improvement Bill,
"to confer further powers upon the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Blackpool; to make further provision in regard to their several undertakings; the granting of superannuation allowances and the health, local government, and improvement of that borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Bognor Gas and Electricity Bill,
"to consolidate with Amendments the provisions of the Bognor Gas and Electricity Acts and Orders, 1908 to 1927, relating to the capital and borrowing powers of the Bognor Gas and Electricity Company; to authorise the Company to raise additional money; to confer further powers upon the Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Burnley Extension Bill,
"to extend the boundaries of the borough of Burnley; and for purposes incidental thereto," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Chester Water Bill,
"to extend the period for the completion of certain works by the Chester Waterworks Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Clacton-On-Sea Pier Bill,
"to authorise the widening of the existing pier in and adjoining the urban district of Clacton, in the county of Essex; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Coventry Canal Navigation Bill,
"to make further provision with respect to the tolls and charges applicable to the Coventry Canal Navigation," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Croydon Corporation Bill,
"to authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Croydon to construct waterworks; to provide for the dissolution of the Croydon and Districts Joint Small Pox Hospital Board and for the transfer of the property of that board to the Corporation; to confer further powers upon the Corporation with regard to their water undertaking, and the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Derwent Valley Water Board Bill,
"to amend the provisions of the Derwent Valley Water Acts, 1899 to 1920, relating to compensation water; to provide for the abandonment of certain of the works authorised by those Acts to be constructed by the Leicester Corporation and to authorise that Corporation to construct other works; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Easington Rural District Council Bill,
"to empower the Easington Rural District Council to acquire certain lands compulsorily; to confer further powers upon the council in respect of their water undertakings, and in regard to tents, vans, and huts; to make further and better provision for the health, local government, and finance of the district; and for other purposes; presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Fylde Water Board Bill,
"to empower the Fylde Water Board to construct further aqueducts and other waterworks; to extend the limits of the Board for the supply of water; to provide for the purchase by the Board of the church and vicarage at Dalehead in the West Riding of Yorkshire; to authorise the Board to borrow money for the construction of the said works and others; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Glamorganshire Canal Company Bill,
"to make further provision as to the rates, tolls, dues, and charges leviable by the Company of Proprietors of the Glamorganshire Canal Navigation; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Great Western Railway Bill,
"for conferring further powers upon the Great Western Railway Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Harrogate Corporation Bill,
"to confer further powers upon the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Harrogate with respect to their electricity and other undertakings, and to make further provision in regard to the health, local government, improvement, and finance of that borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
London and North Eastern Railway Bill,
"to make provision as to the tolls and charges leviable by the London and North Eastern Railway Company on their canals; to extinguish the navigation rights on the Grantham Canal of the said Company; to extend the time for the completion of certain works; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill,
"to confer further powers upon the London County Council and other authorities; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill,
"to empower the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company to acquire lands; to revise the rules of the superannuation fund of the Company; to make provision in relation to tolls and charges upon the canals of that Company and of the West London Extension Railway Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
London Passenger Transport Board Bill,
"to empower the London Passenger Transport Board to provide certain services of trolley vehicles; to construct new works; to acquire lands; to raise additional moneys; to extend the time for the exercise of certain powers of the board in relation to trolley vehicles; to confer further powers on the board; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Maidstone Corporation Bill,
"to make further provision with regard to the electricity undertaking of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Maidstone; and with regard to the health, local government, and improvement of that borough; to make further provision with regard to the finances of the said Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Medway Lower Navigation Bill,
"to amend the Acts relating to the Company of Proprietors of the Lower Navigation of the River Medway; to change their name; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Metropolitan Water Board Bill,
"to empower the Metropolitan Water Board to execute works and to acquire lands; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Newcastle and Gateshead Waterworks Bill,
"to confer upon the Newcastle and Gateshead Water Company further capital and borrowing powers; to provide for the consolidation of preference stocks and debenture stocks of the Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and Ordered to be read a Second time.
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne Corporation (General Powers) Bill,
"to confer further powers upon the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city and county of Newcastle-upon-Tyne with reference to the good government and public health of the city; to make provisions relating to their quays and parks; to amend and consolidate the provisions relating to their road transport undertaking and the provisions relating to the finances of the city; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Oxford Canal Bill,
"to convert into stock the share capital of the Company of Proprietors of the Oxford Canal Navigation; to change the name of the Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Reading Corporation Bill,
"to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Reading to purchase lands for an extension of their town hall and municipal offices; to confer further powers upon them with regard to the provision and working of trolley vehicles and in connection with their electricity undertaking; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Rhyl Urban District Council Bill,
"to confer further powers upon the urban district council of Rhyl with regard to their water and electricity undertakings; to make further and better provision for the improvement, health, and local government and finance of the district; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Rochdale Canal Bill,
"to make further provision as to the tolls and charges leviable by the Rochdale Canal Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Saltburn and Marske-By-The-Sea Urban District Council Bill,
"to enlarge the powers of the urban district council of Saltburn and Marske-by-the-Sea with respect to the pleasure gardens; to make further provision for the improvement, good government and finance of their district; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Bill,
"to confer further powers on the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
South Essex Waterworks Bill,
"to authorise the South Essex Waterworks Company to construct new works and to raise additional capital; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
South Shields Corporation Bill,
"to confer powers upon the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the borough of South Shields of running trolley vehicles; to make various provisions and to confer various powers with respect to the several undertakings of the Corporation; to make further provision for the health, local government, improvement, and finance of the borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Southern Railway Bill,
"to empower the Southern Railway Company to construct works and acquire lands; to extend the time for the completion of certain works and the compulsory purchase of certain lands; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Sunbury on Thames Urban District Council Bill,
"to provide for the variation of the provisions of Section 9 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, in its application to the urban district of Sunbury on Thames; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Weaver Navigation Bill,
"to make further provision with respect to rates, tolls and charges leviable by the Weaver Navigation Trustees," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
West Hampshire Water Bill,
"to extend the limits of supply of the West Hampshire Water Company; to confirm the construction of an existing service reservoir; to authorise the company to raise additional money; to confer further powers upon the company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (County of Holland Joint Hospital District) Bill,
"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the County of Holland Joint Hospital District," presented by Sir Hilton Young; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 23.]
Oral Answers to Questions
Questions
Motor Ship "Omar."
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information regarding the position of the Hull-owned motor ship "Omar" which has been detained by the Finnish authorities for a considerable time?
After the last hearing of this case before the Finnish Court of Appeal, His Majesty's Government requested the Finnish Government to furnish them with a statement of the grounds on which they regarded the seizure of the "Omar" as justifiable under the Anglo-Finnish Liquor Smuggling Convention. This statement has recently been received; and His Majesty's Government have informed the Finnish Government that, in view thereof, they are ready to await the result of the final appeal in this case, which the owners of the vessel have now lodged with the Supreme Court in Finland, provided that they can be assured that the hearing will be expedited as much as possible and that the court, in passing judgment, will take into consideration the provisions of the Convention.
Turkey (British Interests)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the announcement that the Turkish Government are settling the pre-War claims of the United States of America for a quarter of a million, he will make representations to the Turkish Government with regard to the claims of British citizens for the confiscation of their property during the War?
My hon. Friend will appreciate the distinction between pre-War claims and claims for compensation arising during the War. Our pre-War claims against the Turkish Government have, I understand, been settled, and the last instalment was recently paid. As regards claims arising during the War, arrangements for dealing with British claims against Turkey were made at the time of the Lausanne Peace Settlement. Representations such as my hon. Friend suggests cannot now be made to the Turkish Government as, under Article 58 of the Treaty of Lausanne, His Majesty's Government and the Turkish Government reciprocally renounced all pecuniary claims for loss and damage suffered respectively by British and Turkish nationals between 1st August, 1914, and the entry into force of the treaty as the result of acts of war or measures of requisition, sequestration, disposal or confiscation.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that other countries have been paid compensation; and is he also aware that British firms, both during the occupation and since the occupation, have repeatedly sent in claims to the Turkish Government without result, and can he make inquiries on their behalf?
If my hon. Friend will give me the details he has in mind, they shall be carefully examined, but I must point out that his question seems not to draw a distinction between pre-war, claims which, as he says, are being settled with the United States Government, and claims arising out of the War. Our pre-war claims have been settled.
May I remind my right hon. Friend that these claims of British firms are pre-war claims. They have put in those claims to the Turkish Government, and they have not been settled.
If the claims to which my hon. Friend refers are pre-war claims, they are not covered by his original question, which was as to the confiscation of property during the War.
May I apologise for interrupting, but it was during the War—
Order!
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered a communication sent from British residents in Turkey with regard to the action recently taken in that country to prohibit non-Turkish subjects from carrying on certain trades with the result that British residents are becoming destitute; and whether he can take any action in the matter?
Yes, Sir. It has not been possible to obtain any exemption in favour of British subjects from the provisions of the Turkish legislation in question, but the problem is under close examination. In the meantime His Majesty's consular officers in Turkey have been authorised to grant monetary relief in necessitous cases.
Austria
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that several hundred Socialists have been arrested in Vienna, His Majesty's Government will decline to take any further steps to guarantee Austria, financially or otherwise, so long as action such as this is taken without consultation with His Majesty's Minister in Vienna?
I am aware that the Austrian authorities have during the past few days made a number of arrests of persons suspected of illegal activities. I have no precise figures, but it is clear that a large proportion were released after examination. This is a matter of domestic concern to the Austrian Government in which I cannot officially intervene. His Majesty's Government have not had under consideration any further steps to guarantee Austria financially or otherwise.
Would it be proper for His Majesty's Government to indicate to the Austrian Government the opinions they hold on the steps taken to deal with the Socialists in Austria?
I think we must observe a well-understood distinction between official representations such as are proper to be made between two Sovereign States and anything which might be felt to go beyond that.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a strong feeling in this country that our foreign policy should be directed towards supporting democratic Governments throughout the world instead of autocratic Governments?
Is my right hon. Friend not aware that there is a much stronger feeling in this country that we ought to abstain from interfering with foreign countries?
Memel
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement as to the present position of affairs in Memel; what our commitments there are; and what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to prevent aggression by Germany or Lithuania?
The situation in Memel is unfortunately still much as I described it in the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) on the 19th December. The Landtag has met more than once, but a quorum has never been formed and no business can therefore be transacted. Negotiations for the formation of a Directorate, which would possess the confidence of the Landtag, are still continuing between the Governor and the various parties of the Landtag; and His Majesty's Government have spared no efforts to impress upon those responsible for the present situation the desirability of some agreement being reached whereby normal conditions of government in the territory may be restored.
The Memel Convention of 1924, to which this country, as one of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, was a signatory, laid down the conditions subject to which the Memel territory was placed under the sovereignty of Lithuania. The Convention provides that any member of the Council of the League of Nations shall be entitled to draw the attention of the Council to any infraction of the provisions of the Convention and that in the event of any difference of opinion in regard to questions of law or of fact concerning these provisions between the Lithuanian Government and any of the Principal Allied Powers, members of the Council, the latter shall have the right to refer the dispute to the Permanent Court of International Justice.
Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Lithuanian authorities are endeavouring to assist the Memel Chamber to function?
I understand that the Governor of Memel has shown a conciliatory disposition and has already offered the German party in Memel three seats on the Directorate; that is three out of five.
Education Films (International Convention)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Government intend to ratify the convention approved by the League of Nations in October, 1933, for the international circulation of films of an educational character?
His Majesty's Government propose to ratify the convention as soon as the necessary legislative authority has been obtained to enable them to give effect to their undertaking.
Brazil and Chile (British Investors)
8 and 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he will inform the Mexicon Government that, as that Government has been 21 years in default to British holders of its obligations after abortive attempts to obtain a settlement, the proposed renewal of its pledges to meet its obligations cannot be considered unless supported by a cash deposit in sterling with the Association of British Trust Companies;
(2) whether he will request His Majesty's Minister in Chile to remind the Chilean Government that continued default upon their contractual obligations has inflicted hardship upon British investors who relied upon the good faith of the Chilean Government when entrusting their savings to that Government; and will he now support the Association of Trust Companies in their attempt to reach an agreed settlement with the Chilean Government?
The practice of His Majesty's Government in regard to defaults on foreign loans, as stated to the House on numerous occasions, is not to intervene directly, but to watch the interests of British holders and in particular to make every effort to secure that settlements are reached by negotiation with the recognised representatives of the bondholders. I would therefore suggest that the Association of Trust Companies should keep in close touch with the Council of Foreign Bondholders, and I can assure my hon. Friend that any requests for support which I receive from those bodies will at all times be most carefully and sympathetically considered.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, to protect revenue receipts and the overseas trade balance arising from income on foreign investments, he will arrange for a Treasury official to take part in any discussion with the Chilean representatives arising out of the proposals of the Chilean Government to impose the Caja Autonoma de Amortizacion plan of 7th January upon British holders of Chilean external debt without their consent; and will he ask the Chilean Minister in London to furnish him with details of the plan associated with the name of Don José Rios Arias?
I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the replies given to the hon. Member for North Newcastle-on-Tyne (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) on the 15th November last, and to the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett) on the 4th December last. Details of the Plan referred to are already in the possession of His Majesty's Government.
Royal Navy: His Majesty's Ships "Hood" and "Renown" (Collision)
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make any statement as to the cause of the collision between the battle-cruisers "Hood" and "Renown"; what damage was done; and what is the estimated cost of making it good?
The collision occurred when the Battle Cruiser Squadron was re-forming, the bow of the "Renown" striking the "Hood" on the starboard side aft. The cause of the collision has been investigated by a Court of Enquiry, but its report has not yet been received. So far as is known at present, the damage to the "Renown" comprises a fracture of the stem casting and structural damage above and below water. The "Hood" is damaged in the starboard protection compartments, and the blades of the starboard wing propeller are also injured. The "Hood" arrives at Portsmouth on Monday, the 4th February, for full examination and repairs. The estimated cost of the repairs is not yet known.
May I ask whether anybody was injured on either of the two ships?
No. Sir.
Rubber Restriction Scheme
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can furnish information, giving the figures separately for Malaya and the Dutch East Indies, as to the acreage cultivated by Europeans and natives, respectively, immediately before and on the conclusion of the Stevenson scheme and also immediately before the present restriction scheme came into operation?
As the answer contains many figures, with my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
For Malaya the following figures of acreage under rubber are available:
No figures are available of the acreage planted to rubber by natives in the Netherlands East Indies. The following are the acreages of European estates:
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can furnish any estimate as to the change, if any, which has taken place in the average cost of production of rubber since the announcement of the recent restriction scheme?
No, Sir. I am afraid that I have no material on which such an estimate could be based, but I understand that the British and Dutch producers' organisations are now taking steps to ascertain the average cost of production of a large number of estates in the major producing countries on a basis agreed with the International Rubber Regulation Committee and accepted by the consumers' panel sitting on that committee.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to the working of the rubber restriction scheme?
My hon. Friend has no doubt seen the communique of the International Rubber Regulation Committee published in this morning's papers. This communique shows that permissible exports for the last seven months of 1934 were nearly 499,000 tons, and actual exports during this period just over 486,000 tons. These figures show that the scheme has so far worked very satisfactorily, and I think the House will agree that the fact during this initial period the scheme has been operated so closely to the plan reflects great credit on those who had the difficult task of administering so comprehensive a scheme.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken under the rubber restriction scheme for control production by the natives in the Dutch East Indies; and whether the scheme of control provides effectively for the circumstances that would arise in the event of a substantial increase in the price of rubber?
I understand that in some districts a system of individual restriction is being introduced and that in other districts control will continue for the time being to be effected as in the past by means of an export duty. I have every confidence in the ability of the Netherlands Government to ensure effective control in any circumstances that are likely to arise.
Northern Rhodesia (Government Relief)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in Northern Rhodesia, in consequence of the depression, with many persons out of employment, voluntary assistance was organised but proved insufficient, and the Governor provided additional assistance in the form of food and shelter on the strict condition that the value of such assistance should be repaid, and that as a result many families are now faced with a load of debt which they are unable to pay even although they may have been able to find employment; and whether he will make representations to the Governor on this matter?
Provision for Government relief to unemployed and destitute Europeans in Northern Rhodesia existed prior to the organisation of voluntary assistance. Since March, 1933, such persons have been afforded relief by Government without stipulation for repayment being made. The undertakings given prior to that date to repay the value of the relief granted have not been and will not be enforced save in exceptional cases in which recovery is fully justified. For all practical purposes these claims have been waived, and there can therefore be no question of families being faced with a load of debt on this account. I am glad to be able to add that the number of Europeans and their dependants in receipt of relief from Government, which stood as high as 428 in February, 1933, had dropped to below 100 in December, 1934.
Kenya (Death of Mr. T. Powys)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will appoint a commission of inquiry to investigate the circumstances leading to the death of Mr. Theodore Powys in Kenya, the delay in bringing the alleged murderers to trial, and the conduct of the subsequent trial?
I received in May last a full report furnished to the Governor by the commissioner of police, giving an account of the original inquiries in connection with Mr. Powys' death in October, 1931, and of subsequent inquiries up to April last initiated as the result of fresh information. I will place in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of that report. The inquiries were continued after that date, and as a result, five natives were charged with the murder of Mr. Powys. The trial resulted in their acquittal. I have asked the Governor to send me a comprehensive report following up the report to which I have referred and giving similarly a full account of the later investigations, of the action taken by Government in connection therewith, and of the measures taken by Government to maintain law and order in the Samburu territory. As regards the conduct of the trial, my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that it would be most improper for the executive to interfere in any way with or comment upon the conduct of a trial, and I am sure that is not suggested; but I have asked if there may be supplied for information the record of the trial. When I receive the further report from the Governor, I will make this also available to members by placing a copy in the Library. I could not express any opinion as to whether any inquiry is called for into any aspect of this matter, properly falling within the jurisdiction of Government, until I have received the full report of the Governor.
Malaya (Wild Life Protection)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to guard wild life in Malaya from extinction since the Wild Life Commission reported in May, 1933?
My hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware that for years past there have been laws in force in Malaya for the preservation of wild life. As a result of the commission's report a new and more comprehensive Ordinance has been drafted in the Straits Settlements which is intended to serve is a model also for legislation in the Malay States so that a uniform system may thereafter be achieved throughout the Peninsula. Negotiations are also in hand for the extension of a large existing game reserve in the State of Pahang so that, with contiguous territories in two other States, the whole may effectively serve as a national park in the area which the commission recommended.
Would it not be possible to help the preservation of game by making it commercially unprofitable to slaughter it? For instance, the fine for killing a rhinoceros is only 250 dollars, but the animal is worth 2,000 dollars in the market?
I have not seen the details of the model Ordinance which is being prepared, but I think that the point put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is the thing to go for. I believe that it is receiving very careful consideration. When I get the Ordinance, I shall be very pleased to let my hon. and gallant Friend see it.
Trade and Commerce
Quota System (Colonies)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can supply figures to show the effect on the trade of this country of the operation of the quota system in certain colonies; and if this method is to be extended or a heavier duty substituted?
My hon. Friend will be aware that the quota system for textiles was introduced only in the second quarter of last year, and it is only in exceptional cases that Colonial Governments publish monthly statistics of imports. Such evidence as is available, however, shows that the system is proving effective.
Can the right hon. Gentleman give any particulars as to how much it has improved since then, in a general way?
No, I cannot, at the present moment. As I explained, very few colonies keep monthly figures in the way that they are kept here, but such actual figures as I have and, what is perhaps more important, the reports that I get from firms exporting, show that there is a very definite and marked improvement.
Is it not a fact that a number of colonies expressed resentment at the imposition of these quotas, and can the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not that resentment continues?
No. I think I am quite justified in saying that it does not. For instance, in Ceylon, where exceptional action was taken, the system is working very satisfactorily.
Has not a material amount of employment resulted from the action of the exporters?
Yes, Sir, it has. Every order which is placed here obviously is putting somebody in work here.
Colonial Development (Loans and Advances)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in order to accelerate the progress of many colonies with benefit to the import trade of this country, the Government will arrange for suitable large loans to be made available at a reduced rate of interest specifically to improve the trade of the United Kingdom?
Colonial loans are trustee securities, and Colonies are therefore able to take full advantage of the fall in interest rates in any new borrowing. But, in addition, the Colonial Development Fund is available to assist either by direct loan or by grant of interest in approved cases of development. This is a very valuable help, and my hon. Friend will see from the last report of the Committee that 89 per cent. of the assistance asked for in 1933–34 was approved.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether undertakings financed by loans from the Colonial Development Fund, which is maintained by the British taxpayer, are open to tender by overseas Dominion firms?
The Colonial Development Act prescribes that advances may be made by the Treasury
"for the purpose of aiding and developing commerce and industry in the colony or territory and thereby promoting commerce with or industry in the United Kingdom,"
and, in view of this express provision, all orders placed outside the colony or territory are placed in the United Kingdom.
Imports (Low-Paid Labour)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the policy of the Government in respect of the competition being experienced by United Kingdom manufacturers from goods made by low-paid labour in other parts of the British Empire?
I have been asked to reply. Possible difficulties which may be caused by such competition as is referred to by my hon. Friend are constantly kept in mind by His Majesty's Government and are considered in the light of all the circumstances of each case as it arises. I would remind my hon. Friend that Parliament, by the passage of the Import Duties Act and the Ottawa Agreements Act, has laid down the general principle that goods grown, produced or manufactured within the Empire and consigned from the Empire should enter the United Kingdom free of customs duties.
When the President of the Board of Trade is looking further into this subject, will he keep his eye upon foreign firms in this country which are in competition with other firms who are treating their workpeople very much better than those firms do?
War Material (Export Licences)
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of applications made during 1934 for licences to export arms and munitions; and the number of licences granted and the number refused?
I have been asked to reply. During 1934 the number of applications made for licences to export war material was 425. Four hundred and thirteen licences were issued and seven refused. Five applications are awaiting completion of the necessary formalities.
In view of those figures, will the hon. Gentleman ask the President whether he considers that our system of licences is in fact very effective?
That is a matter of policy which does not arise out of the question.
Questions
Ceylon (Malaria Epidemic)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the recent serious epidemic of malaria in Ceylon whereby many hundreds of thousands have been affected, while some 2,000 have died; whether he is aware that the Ceylon popularly elected State Council a year ago rejected a Mosquito Ordinance, the object of which was to prevent the spread of malaria; and what action is being taken to see that the health services of the island are more adequately dealt with in the future than they have been in the past by the local government?
I have received regular telegraphic reports from the Governor during the outbreak, and I am glad to say that he has recently informed me that the epidemic is showing a distinct decline in most districts. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. But as far as my present information goes, the passage of that Measure could not have prevented the severity of the recent outbreak, which appears to have been largely due to exceptional climatic conditions in an area in which malaria is not endemic. Prompt measures appear to have been taken to deal with the situation, both in regard to treatment of the sick and to general relief measures. The severity of the present outbreak directs renewed attention to the importance of framing a comprehensive plan of preventive activity, and the Colonial Office will, of course, give to or secure for the Ceylon Government all help possible in such an effort.
Does my right hon. Friend not think that the Mosquito Ordinance would have materially ameliorated the danger from this epidemic, which is caused by mosquito bites, and would be agree now that this shows how undesirable it is to give democratic government based on an illiterate electorate and the dangers that come from it?
British Guiana (Proclamation)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in British Guiana a proclamation has been in force for more than a year prohibiting assemblies of workers to discuss questions of labour and wages; on what grounds this proclamation was made; and whether he is proposing to withdraw it?
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) on 31st May, 1934, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that if workmen are not allowed to assemble in public to discuss their grievances they will find other ways of doing it?
Perhaps if the hon. Member studies the terms of the Ordinance which I circulated in reply to another question, he will find that it is a very reasonable provision.
Aviation
Aerodromes, Palestine
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any decision has yet been reached with regard to the establishment of satisfactory civil aerodromes in Palestine near centres of population; and whether he is in a position to make any statement on the matter?
No, Sir. I am afraid I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
When is the right hon. Gentleman likely to be in a position to make a statement?
I would not like to give a definite date, but an expert has been out there reporting to the Governor on the aerodromes, so I hope to be in a position to do so shortly.
Imperial Air Communications
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can now make a further statement with reference to the development of Empire air services?
The negotiations referred to in my statement of 20th December last are still proceeding. With a view to facilitating these negotiations it has been suggested to the other Governments concerned that advantage should be taken of the fact that certain representatives of the Air Ministry and the Post Office are about to make an inspection of the routes concerned to arrange for oral discussion.
Has the right hon. Gentleman yet received information from any of the Governments likely to participate that they foresee difficulty in falling in with His Majesty's Government's proposals?
I do not think I can add anything to my answer.
Will this Commission discuss the Indian situation with Indian National Airways?
Oh, yes, certainly.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will state what steps have been taken towards the construction of new types of high-speed civil aircraft for use on Empire routes under the Government's revised policy?
As I informed the House just before Christmas, details as regards the type of aircraft to be employed in connection with the new scheme for the further development of Empire air mail communications cannot be finally settled until negotiations with the other Governments concerned have been completed. I am, however, informed that the Board of Imperial Airways have under consideration the order of certain prototype aircraft which will be capable of use under the new scheme.
Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that these aircraft will be by contract and not by private tender?
That lies with Imperial Airways.
Gliding
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any statement as to the position regarding the Air Ministry offer of a subsidy under certain conditions to assist gliding in this country?
This question has been the subject of discussion between the Air Ministry and the representatives of gliding, and as a result I hope that a concrete scheme for the allocation and administration of the proposed grant will be submitted to my Department for consideration at an early date.
Air Services (Gatwick-Paris)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can make a statement regarding the proposed new hourly service from Gatwick to Paris?
I am aware that tentative proposals are being canvassed for the operation of such a service, but I am not in a position to make any statement upon them.
Questions
Palestine (Railway Communications)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state whether the report of experts now examining Palestine railway communications will be available in this country or made to the Government of Palestine direct; and whether the investigation will include the possibility of railway communication between Palestine ports and central Asian countries in the hinterland?
The report of Sir Felix Pole, to which I think the hon. Member refers, will be made direct to the Government of Palestine. But I have no doubt that the substance of his recommendations will be published. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
Royal Air Force
Motor Accidents
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether in view of the fact that 448 cases of injury to the personnel of the Royal Air Force during the past year were the result of motor accidents, it is intended to take any steps to deal with this matter in the interests both of economy and of road safety?
The great majority of the accidents related to personnel not on duty, and only limited opportunities are, of course, open to my Department for exercising control in such cases. The question as to whether any regulations can suitably be made to supplement those that apply to the public generally, is however, under consideration.
Autogyro Accident
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether in view of the public interest aroused by the recent fatal accident to a Royal Air Force autogyro while flying over Salisbury Plain, he will depart from the usual custom and publish the findings of the inspector of accidents as to the causes of the crash?
The investigation of the inspector of accidents in this case is not yet complete, but, when his report is received, my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion that information regarding the cause of this service accident should, exceptionally, be made public will certainly be considered.
Transport
Pedestrians' Crossing-Places
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any further information to give the House regarding the crossing-places for pedestrians; and whether, in view of the numerous complaints of motorists that the beacons cannot be seen at night, it is proposed to use some form of lighting?
As I have previously stated, I am prepared to consider proposals put forward by local authorities for the internal illumination of beacons, but in many cases the first question for consideration by the authority will be whether the street lighting should not be improved so that the crossing, as well as the beacon itself, may be sufficiently illuminated by street lamps. I would also refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made yesterday in reply to the question by the hon. Member for St. Pancras S.W. (Mr. Mitcheson), of which I am sending him a copy.
Will the hon. Gentleman represent to the local authorities that these beacons should as far as possible be placed under or alongside street lamps, so that they can be seen at night?
I have already done so. It is, of course, the intention that the beacons should catch the light from street lamps, and should, therefore, be in reasonable proximity to them.
Is the Minister satisfied that all these beacons are visible at night; and, if not, will he take the initiative in illuminating those about which he is not satisfied?
I think I have made that point plain. I am not satisfied that they are all visible at night. They are clearly visible when there is a good system of street lighting, but, where there is not a good system of street lighting, either the system of street lighting should be improved, or I am prepared to consider giving my consent to the illumination of the beacons themselves.
In view of the dangers in the City of Westminster, will the Minister take steps to make sure that there are beacons at all crossing places, so that motorists will know that places marked with lines which the rain washes out are intended to be crossing places?
I will communicate my hon Friend's observations to the City of Westminster.
Uncollected Passenger Fares
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the case in which a London magistrate gave his decision in favour of a passenger whose fare was uncollected when she left a tramway car; and, in view of the inconvenience passengers might find themselves in under similar circumstances, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
As the decision is to be the subject of an appeal, the hon. Member will understand that I can make no reference to it at present.
Built-Up Areas (Speed Limit)
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the urgency of getting the 30 miles per hour regulation into force in towns and built-up areas, he can now fix a definite date for its introduction?
As I have already announced, I propose to bring the speed limit of 30 miles per hour on roads in built-up areas into force on the 18th March next.
Would it not be possible to advance that date, as speed is such a potent cause of accidents?
It is all so dependent upon the speed with which highway authorities can make their arrangements, and I have already been told that 18th March is too close a date. I am afraid it would not be possible to advance it.
Parking Regulations
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has made progress in persuading local authorities generally, and those of the London traffic area in particular, to reduce the danger to human life by restricting the use of public thoroughfares are storage places for stationary motor-vehicles; and will he request the Metropolitan police authorities to abate the nuisance caused by many side streets in the West End of London being partially blocked by being used as temporary garages during the busiest hours of the day?
As I recently informed by hon. Friend, I am in sympathy with his view that the King's highway is constructed and maintained at the public expense to provide a free passage for traffic, and that those who desire to leave their vehicles should, wherever possible, make use of garages, and I take such opportunities as are open to me to encourage their provision. The question of action to be taken by the police is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It is the practice of the police to intervene where obstruction or danger is likely to arise.
Cross-River Traffic, Selby
asked the Minister of Transport whether the consulting engineers have yet commenced their investigations into the various schemes for improving the cross-river traffic at Selby laid before them by the appropriate highway authorities; and whether their investigations will be confined to alternatives put forward by such local authorities, or whether it will be open to other bodies, such as the Selby Urban District Council, to submit their views for examination by these experts?
The consulting engineers have commenced their investigations and have been instructed to confer with all the interested bodies, which include the Selby Urban District Council.
Public Service Vehicles (Unbreakable Glass)
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to a collision between two omnibuses in Borough High Street on the 13th January whereby a number of passengers were injured by broken glass; and what are the regulations governing omnibuses and other public vehicles in London with regard to the glazing of their windows with triplex or other unbreakable glass?
The regulations require that, in the case of all motor vehicles registered after the 1st January, 1932, all glass fitted to windscreens or windows facing to the front, except glass fitted to the upper deck of double-decked vehicles, shall be safety glass. The two vehicles involved in the accident to which the hon. Member refers were registered before 1st January, 1932.
Do I understand, then, that no steps are being taken by the Ministry, in connection with the safety of the public, to see that unbreakable glass is put into public vehicles registered before January, 1932? Ought not something to be done with regard to them?
My answer covers that point. As I have said, the Regulations require the fitting of vehicles registered after that date. I have not taken any steps to apply the Regulations in advance of that date.
Do I understand that the lower deck of a double-deck omnibus does not require to have triplex glass in the side windows?
I think my answer deals with that point.
Bridges and Tunnels
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in connection with the relief of unemployment, he will consider experimenting in two or three places in the country with the construction of overhead bridges or underground tunnels at ultra-important cross-roads with the object of showing whether this improvement of traffic could be generally adopted?
I have already given approval in principle to a scheme for a cross-over junction, and should be glad to receive other proposals for similar experiments in suitable cases from responsible highway authorities.
Will not the Minister consider the many railway crossings which roads have to cross, and put bridges there?
Accidents
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider appointing a committee of medical experts to investigate the place of alcohol in the causes of road accidents?
In order to meet the hon. Member's desire and the many representations which have been made to me, I will invite the British Medical Association to say whether they could usefully make any observations on the subject.
Will the Minister recommend an amendment of the law under which a man is assumed to be in charge of a car although he may have no intention of driving it, and may, in fact, be incapable of doing so?
Would the Minister consider inserting an appropriate warning on this subject in the next edition of the Highway Code?
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are taken by the police, coroners, and other responsible officials to ascertain in cases of road accidents whether those driving vehicles were under the influence of alcohol?
If the circumstances suggest that a driver who has been involved in a traffic accident was under the influence of drink or drugs, it is the well-established practice for the police to arrange for his examination by a police surgeon, and also, if the person concerned wishes it, by a doctor selected by himself. In any case where a death has resulted from the accident, the result of the police surgeon's examination would be made available at the inquest and also in any criminal proceedings which might be taken. I do not know what other responsible officials the hon. Member has in mind.
Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say whether his Department is going to take any definite action consequent upon comments made by Mr. Justice Rigby Swift at Liverpool Assizes, as the matter has already been the subject of question in this House, and the right hon. Gentleman promised to consider it?
I am afraid I shall have to consider that, as I do not remember the circumstances.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the report on fatal accidents in 1933 reveals the fact that 99 per cent. of the accidents were due to people who were sober?
River Forth (Bridge Scheme, Rosyth)
asked the Minister of Transport whether instructions have now been given for the completion of the survey for a road bridge across the River Forth at Rosyth; and, if so, when the report of the survey is likely to be available?
The consulting engineers have made the survey, but their report is awaiting the completion of borings, work upon which is being started forthwith.
Does not the Minister consider that the proposed road bridge over the Forth would fit in very closely with the new five-years road development plan?
Motor Driving Tests (Examiners, Wales)
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in appointing examiners of applicants for driving licences, he will bear in mind the necessity of appointing Welsh-speaking examiners for Welsh areas?
Yes, Sir, this will be kept in view when making appointments.
Questions
Broadcasting
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has been able to arrange to have a weekly broadcast in Spanish for the benefit of the people of South America, especially for the important British communities resident in that continent?
This is a matter for the British Broadcasting Corporation, to whom I will communicate the suggestion of the hon. Member.
Is my hon. Friend aware that this question concerns the Government owing to the fact that most of the British news which reaches Spanish South America comes through United States channels?
The settled policy of the Post Office is not to interfere with the broadcasting programmes of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Post Office
Air Mail Services
asked the Postmaster-General how many days it takes for a letter sent by air-mail from London to reach Santiago de Chile; in how many days does an air-mail letter reach Calcuta from London; and for how many years have these two air-mail services been established?
The time of transmission by air mail to Santiago is eight days, and to Calcutta six days. The through air-mail service to Santiago commenced in October, 1929, and the England-India air service was extended to Calcutta in July, 1933.
Is my hon. Friend aware that the service to Santiago includes 4½ days by sea?
It is true that the Calcutta service is slower than the Santiago service, but it is hoped to accelerate the two services to Calcutta.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will make arrangements with manufacturing and other stationers in this country for the producing, advertising, and selling of special stationery for air-mail correspondence or, alternatively, will he consider selling envelopes and letter paper suitable for air mails through all post offices?
Special stationery suitable for air-mail correspondence is already sold by most stationers, and no action on my part seems to be required.
Foreign Parcels Post (Spain)
asked the Post-master-General whether, in view of the fact hat the Spanish administration has recently agreed to accept parcels weighing up to 20 kilos (44 lbs.) from certain continental countries, he will increase the present weight limit of 22 lbs. for parcels sent by post from this country to Spain?
I am looking into the matter and will write to my hon. Friend.
Telephonic Communication, Shetland
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can make a statement as to the provision of wireless telephonic communication between the mainland of Shetland and the islands of Foula and Papa Stour?
Inquiries as to the possibility of affording a telegraphic service with Foula and Papa Stour at reasonable cost are in hand, and I am trying to find premises on the mainland of Shetland suitably situated for a wireless station to serve both islands. Owing to the nature of the coast and its sparse population, this presents some difficulty. I should have to look to the interested parties to cover the major portion of the costs. A telephone service with exchange facilities is, I regret to say, much too costly to contemplate.
Site, Whitechapel
asked the Postmaster-General whether the site acquired by his Department at the junction of Hanbury Street and Deal Street, Whitechapel, Stepney, has been transferred for the purpose of providing housing accommodation which is needed in that district?
This matter is still under consideration in consultation with the Ministry of Health, and I will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.
Before the proceedings of the Ministry of Health are completed, will the hon. Gentleman point out to the Ministry how important it is in this very thickly populated area that a place of this description, on which about 50 families could be housed, should be used for housing purposes, and also how dangerous it would be if there were any addition to the already heavy motor traffic in the district.
No doubt, all those points will be considered.
Questions
Durham University (Inquiry)
asked the Prime Minister whether the Royal Commission which has been inquiring into the constitution of Durham University and its constituent colleges has now reported; and when the report is likely to be made public?
The commission have not yet reported, but I understand that they hope to present their report towards the end of February. Until the commission have reported, the question of publication does not arise.
War Office
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the terms of the Kellogg Pact to which the United Kingdom has adhered and of the antiwar sentiment throughout the country, in view also of the fact that the Army is only one of three forces on which the country relies for its defence in the event of war, he will reconsider his refusal to introduce legislation to change the title of the War Office to Army Office?
I do not think I should be justified in occupying the time of the House with legislation for this purpose.
Agriculture
Poultry and Eggs Commission (Report)
asked the Minister of Agriculture when the report of the Poultry and Egg Commission is likely to be published; and whether the Government propose to initiate legislation in the near future to help this branch of the agricultural industry?
I have received the report of the English Reorganisation Commission for Eggs and Poultry, and it will be published, I hope, by the end of next week. As regards the last part of the question, it will be for the industry to consider the commission's recommendations in the first instance. In so far as these recommendations may involve legislation, they will, of course, receive the Government's careful attention, but I cannot at this stage anticipate what action it may be considered necessary to take.
Holly Lodge Farm
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the intention of the Metropolitan Water Board to construct a reservoir over Holly Lodge Farm at Walton-on-Thames, which maintains on 187 acres a permanent working staff of 65 with a wages and salaries bill of £11,500 annually and is considered by experts to be the most successful experimental farm in England; and whether he will take steps to procure a further investigation of alternative sites by the Metropolitan Water Board before their scheme is presented for approval to Parliament?
The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I have no power to require the Metropolitan Water Board to make further investigations of alternative sites. I have no doubt that this aspect of the question will receive careful consideration when the Private Bill, which I understand the board are promoting during the present Session, comes before Parliament.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give evidence?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the best example of intensive cultivation in the whole country, and, in such circumstances, should not the Ministry do everything it possibly can to approach the local authority to take a different line?
My hon. Friend will realise that this is coming before a private Bill Committee, and it would be injudicious for the Ministry to take sides at present.
Is not the Department aware of the high research value of this farm and the great loss it would be to agriculture if anything were done to disturb its operation?
I have a high opinion of the work carried on at this farm. It is a matter which will be investigated in the normal procedure of this House.
Sugar-Beet Industry
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that farmers must now consider the preparation of their land for the sugar-beet crop, he can make any statement of a reassuring character so that this crop, beneficial to farmers, farm workers, and others, may be continued?
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the further delay which appears likely to ensue in connection with the long-term policy regarding Government assistance for sugar-beet, he will take an early opportunity to state whether it is intended to continue the existing temporary arrangement for another year, as so many farmers are anxiously awaiting such an announcement before they can plan their cropping for the coming season?
I fully appreciate the desire of agriculturists for an early indication of policy with regard to the forthcoming sugar-beet crop. The situation arising from the fact that the report of the Committee of Inquiry is not available is being carefully considered by the Government, but I am not at present in a position to make a statement.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the report will be available?
Could the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to make any statement?
No, I am afraid I cannot say that.
Is it likely that there will be still a month's delay, or less than that?
I cannot add anything to the statement that I have already made.
Fat Cattle Subsidy
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is intended to continue the fat cattle subsidy after 31st March next?
It will be recalled that the temporary arrangements for which provision is made in the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1934, were put into operation in order to give time and opportunity for full discussion with the Governments, particularly with the Dominion Govtrnments, concerned, of the important proposals with regard to a long-term solution of the livestock problem, contained in the White Paper on the livestock situation issued in July, 1934 (Cmd. 4651). These discussions are still actively in progress, and, recognising the difficulty of the problems with which many of the Governments concerned are faced, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have de- cided that an extension of the existing period for discussion is desirable. It is proposed, therefore, to introduce legislation at an early date providing for further advances for a short period from the Exchequer to the Cattle Fund. Parliament will be asked to make provision in the first instance covering a period of three months. The Government earnestly trust that it will be found possible to reach an agreement, along the lines already set out in the White Paper, within that period, but the proposed legislation will provide for the possibility of a further extension, not exceeding three months, subject to the specific authority of Parliament.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much charge is involved upon the taxpayers by each of these periods of three months?
No, my right hon. Friend should await the legislation.
Questions
Tithe Rentcharge
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will state the number of tithe-distraint orders that have been issued and executed for the year ended 1934 or the nearest available date; the total amount of tithe due and the value of the goods distrained; and the approximate date when the Royal Commission are expected to finish their inquiry?
The collection and recovery of tithe rentcharge by tithe-owners, as I informed the hon. Member on 1st November last, is not a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of the Ministry, and I am therefore not in a position to give the information asked for in the first and second parts of his question. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
Is not the Department in the habit of receiving the reports that appear in the papers from time to time as to the numbers of cattle that have been pinched by tithe owners and indexing them so that the right hon. Gentleman can have all this information at his disposal?
No, I am not in the habit of receiving information about goods which have been distrained for agricultural tithes or anything else.
Should it not be the duty of the Department to have all this information indexed and filed away?
I do not share the hon. Member's desire to have information filed away and indexed which is never going to be acted upon.
Your office is worse than a trade union one.
Government of India Bill
asked the Secretary of State for India what is the estimated population in the areas in British-India scheduled for exclusion and for partial exclusion, respectively, under the Government of India Bill?
The estimated population of the areas in India proposed by the Bill to be treated as excluded is about 1,300,000, and in Burma about 1,876,000: and the population of the areas to be treated as partially excluded in India is about 12,184,000 and in Burma about 366,500.
Coal Industry (Fire-Fighting Appliances)
asked the Secretary for Mines what action he proposes to take with regard to the suggestion of His Majesty's inspector for mines who reported upon the explosion at Bilsthorpe colliery to the effect that more adequate fire-fighting appliances should be provided at all mines?
I have already called the attention of the industry to the urgency and importance of this matter and improved provision for fighting fires has already been or is now being made by many colliery managements in different parts of the country. In some respects the equipment and organisation which are thus being provided follow different lines, along which practical experience is now being obtained, and I have given instructions for a close study of these developments to be made by His Majesty's inspectors generally, with the object of determining as soon as possible the best basis for common action.
Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to make shot-firing in mines illegal?
The inquiry heard 1,500 questions and answers, and it would be impossible to draw any definite conclusions until the evidence has been weighed.
I am not referring to the hon. Member's answer in respect of the inquiry into the question. As a result of that inquiry, it was obviously revealed that ignition was due to shot-firing, and in consequence it may be assumed that there is a potential explosion.
I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I misheard him. As a result of a consultation between the Department and the Mining Association of Great Britain in October last, the latter undertook to consider the subject and means of combating fire underground, and the district associations were invited to collaborate and collate information as to the practice and to state their views on the subject.
The question I ask is whether, in view of the fact that shot-firing causes ignition, the Minister will take steps to ascertain the possibility of eliminating shot-firing and substitute other means.
That is another question.
You deal with the effects, but not with the causes.
Police
Traffic Duty
asked the Home Secretary the number of police that have been taken off traffic duty since the introduction of automatic signals?
In England and Wales the installation of traffic light signals has up to the present released 1,186 constables from traffic duty.
Widows' Pensions (Mrs. Bruce)
asked the Home Secretary whether the widow of Police-constable G. Bruce, who was killed within nine days of retiring, has been granted the full pension she would have received in the normal course of events; and, if not, whether he will consider her claim on compassionate grounds.
Yes, Sir. Mrs. Bruce has been awarded the full pension and her children the full allowances for which they were respectively eligible under the Police Pensions Act.
Questions
Gaming Parties
asked the Home Secretary whether he has any further statement to make as to the alleged gambling party at Sunderland House on 5th December last?
I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that no evidence is available to support a charge under the Gaming Acts or the Licensing Acts. But the whole question of these gaming parties is being closely watched and proceedings will be taken by the police in any case which comes to their notice of contravention of the law if the necessary evidence can be obtained.
While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask whether he has seen statements in the public Press by persons saying that they paid for admission to this alleged party at which considerable gambling took place; and, further, does he realise the effect of failure to proceed against these persons while at the same time proceeding against the owners of numerous penny-pin-tables at popular fairs?
I have tried to explain that the essence of the question is whether you can get evidence.
Aliens
asked the Home Secretary whether he will give an assurance that no permission will be granted to Bela Kun or his friends to enter this country; and what is the attitude of the Government towards this agitator?
No application has been received on this man's behalf for permission to come to this country. As at present advised I should not be prepared to grant permission.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any alien tailors have been admitted into this country during the past 12 months; and, if so, the number and countries of origin?
Three foreign retail bespoke tailors have been admitted to this country under permit during the past 12 months, two from Czechoslovakia and one from Yugoslavia. Such permits are only issued under stringent conditions, one of which is that the employer has satisfactory arrangements for training apprentices.
Coroners' Inquests (Committee of Inquiry)
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the methods adopted at a recent coroner's inquest at Weymouth, he will set up a committee to define more closely the powers of coroners' courts and to draw up regulations for their better guidance?
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to a question by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones).
British North Atlantic Shipping Interests
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement with regard to the action taken by him to prevent the purchase of ships of the Red Star Line by British interests; in virtue of what authority his action was taken; and whether, in view of the many protests made, the matter will be reconsidered?
I cannot usefully add to the full statements made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to a question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birkenhead, West (Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen) on the 30th November and in Debate on the 4th December last, nor is he able to modify the view he then expressed. With regard to the second part of the question, the right hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. As my right hon. Friend has already explained to the House, the interests concerned in this proposal (largely no doubt because it would have involved the transfer of capital abroad) asked the Treasury informally to express an opinion on the scheme and the Treasury equally informally did so.
May I ask the Financial Secretary whether, having taken action which has reduced the size of the British Mercantile Marine and deprived many British seamen of work, he can give the House any assurance that these or similar vessels will not be run by foreigners?
As I explained to the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken no action, except to give his view as to the proposed transaction, and as far as I am aware no ships have yet been transferred from the British Mercantile Marine.
Do I understand from the last observation of the hon. Gentleman that this is merely an informal expression of opinion on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that he will not oppose—will not take effective measures to oppose any further action being taken by the important interests concerned if they wish to buy these ships?
Yes, Sir.
Customs and Excise Laws (Convictions)
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of convictions and the amount of fines inflicted in connection with Customs and Excise frauds for the year ended 1934 or the nearest available date?
During the year ended 31st December, 1934, 1,460 convictions were obtained in respect of offences against the Customs and Excise laws and penalties amounting to £63,825 were imposed.
Orders of the Day
Housing Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
3.38 p.m.
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill is one which takes a definite step in a great social reform which is urgently required by the conscience of the nation. The very foundations of our civilisation and its hope of progress are to-day our concern.
It is, I believe, common ground among all Members of the House that there is much that is amiss with the housing standards and conditions of the people. In the old days, before the industrial revolution, there was some standard of propriety and of hygiene in accordance with the ideas of those early times, at least as regards the urban population. As regards the rural population there was much to be desired. After the industrial revolution we had enlightened standards as to what was best in housing, based upon scientific knowledge and particularly the great advances in medical science. But between those two stages in our development there came the industrial revolution, that great eruption of national energies, when attention was centred elsewhere and there was too little regard for the housing which was being provided. In consequence of the lack of forethought and the lack of care during that period of great national emergence our national equipment of housing grew up very largely too haphazard and we are at the present time suffering from the evil legacy of that period of our national career.
We have inherited from those bad days in our housing history two outstanding evils, the evil of the slums and the evil of overcrowding. There are too many houses that are not fit to live in, and of the houses that are fit to live in there are not enough to go round, and any national effort for the betterment of conditions, to be rightly directed, must be directed against those two evils in particular. The Government's programme for dealing with those evils has accordingly been developed in two stages. The first stage was the stage of the development of the campaign against slums. That campaign has been launched, and successfully launched. The organisation period is over and we are now seeing the first results of the actual work based upon the period of organisation. I have said that the launch has been successful and I will give with satisfaction to the House the most recent figures as to the work actually accomplished. In the course of the last two years for which I have full records the number of people for whom re-housing arrangements were to be undertaken amounted to 300,000. At the end of the year, if we are to reckon by rates of progress, we were progressing 30 times more rapidly than the rate at which we were progressing in slum clearance before the campaign was undertaken. The most recent figures, not yet published, in the housing return show a continuance of that state of affairs. During the month of January the number of new houses for the re-housing of slum dwellers, which were approved for immediate construction, was 5,000, a rate of progress of 60,000 houses per year.
How many were built?
The hon. Member knows very well that the number of houses built depends upon the number approved, and, if he will look at the returns for the complete year, he will see that the number of houses built follows closely that figure. To ask me the number of houses completed of those approved in January is to ask me a question which is absurd. In view of those figures, I can give the House the assurance that it will require from any Minister of Health during the continuance of the five years programme from time to time. The programme is continuing so successfully that it promises that we shall achieve the full effort of rehousing 1,250,000 people within the five years. I only refer to that fact to-day because it is the successful launching of that campaign and its successful interpretation into actual effort which enables us to proceed to the second stage with which we are concerned to-day, namely, the direct attack upon the evil of overcrowding.
The House will require few words from me to emphasise the importance of that second stage. Health and happiness in the home are concerned more than anything else with adequate space and accommodation. All medical science tells us that it is human life in overcrowded conditions that is the fertile soil in which diseases grow, epidemic diseases and particularly the white scourge of tuberculosis, and that there is no single improvement that can be effected for the elimination of disease of more importance in its material effect than enabling people to sleep at proper spaces from each other. As regards the actual overcrowding, those who have visited people in their homes know of many instances of families living in overcrowded conditions of four or five persons in a room. What happiness can there be under such conditions? What a prospect for the man when he goes home from his work in the evening! What a burden it casts upon the mother of the family in keeping conditions right and wholesome under such a state of affairs! Even apart from happiness, how can the ordinary decencies of life continue so long as we tolerate such a condition of things in our society? I need not, however, labour that aspect of the question.
Let me say a few words on the magnitude of the problem. We do not know how big the problem of reducing overcrowding is and we shall not know until we have carried out the survey, but if anyone is inclined to doubt that it is a big problem let him consult the recent return of the Registrar-General and he will find what the problem is. I would refer to overcrowding in its most severe forms. In its most severe forms we see from that return that there are 50,000 families living at a density of four or more to a room. There are 180,000 families living at a density of three or more to a room. Those are the most severe forms and they inflict the greatest hardships upon those who live under such conditions. Although the problem is great we must be encouraged to believe from the figures that the problem is by no means unmanageable. It is by no means beyond the resources of the State, by a great effort, to deal with it. So much for the amount and the size of the problem. Let me say a word about a most important aspect of it, and that is the characteristics of the overcrowding. Unless we realise the conditions of overcrowding we shall not find the true remedy. We all recognise that the most salient characteristics of the worst evils of overcrowding are its associations with the central areas of our towns, built in the 18th and the first half of the 19th century.
It is in the regions of mean streets, built before due regard as to housing standards arose in our minds, where overcrowding is characteristically present, the inner and older areas of our towns, with mean streets badly developed, a wasteful layout of the land, which according to modern ideas are neither proper from the point of view of amenities nor economic from the point of view of housing the maximum number under proper conditions—it is with these central areas in particular that we have to struggle. We have failed to grapple with this problem in the past largely because we have failed to recognise that you cannot remedy overcrowding unless you are prepared to find the means for re-housing a large proportion of the dwellers in these central areas near the scene of their original home. We have sought to cure the evil by providing dwellings at a distance. I am certain that that policy will not work. People are tied to the scene of their original homes by the necessity of being near their work, and it is a burden on the economic resources of the State in the way of additional trans- port charges to move them away. But they are also tied by all the social associations of residing near their friends and families and every effort, therefore, to remedy these conditions must be an effort which will have due regard to that central condition. Such are the outstanding characteristics of the problem that we have to solve.
Let me pass now to the practical measures by which we seek to apply a solution, the plan of campaign for attacking the evil of overcrowding. We must notice what an extremely elusive thing overcrowding is. It differs in this from slums. You can recognise a slum house by its bricks and mortar, you cannot fail to recognise it, but overcrowding may occur in one place and then in another. Therefore the first essential for an effective remedy for overcrowding is that it should be universal over the whole country at one time so that you will not drive overcrowding from one place and allow it to occur in another. The second essential condition for a remedy is that we must not be content with mere pious aspirations and indirect action but be ready to back our plan with the whole force of law, to enforce it by law, so that we shall be certain that the money which is spent will secure the result which we desire to achieve.
Before I explain to the House, to the best of my ability, the nature of the measures proposed, let me say that there have been prolonged and close discussions with the local authorities who will be responsible for the work. Discussions more full and free, and I believe more frank, have never taken place before on any Government Measure, and they have had the most useful result in an improvement in the design. I should like to pay my tribute of thanks to the associations of local authorities who have been concerned. As a result of these discussions, we have arrived at a substantial measure of agreement on the general outlines of the Bill. In this connection, it has been interesting to me to see the criticisms of the Bill which have been advanced by the most important single local authority, the London County Council. I did not expect unduly favourable treatment because the London County Council has assumed a complexion more sympathetic to hon. Members opposite. First I re- ceived encouragement in the demand for more money, a most natural and human demand, and one to be expected. In the second place, there are complaints of a possible increase of expenditure owing to an alteration in the law of compensation, with which I will deal later, but for the rest they are only Committee points, which one would expect owing to the nature of the interests associated with the London County Council, to which I shall give the most careful attention when we come to the proper stage of the Bill.
In laying down a plan of campaign, the first essential is to arrive at a standard of what overcrowding is—to lay down a national standard of accommodation. The overcrowded house has been an offence ever since 1850, but it has been impossible to enforce the offence, because there has been no definition of what overcrowding is and, secondly, because there has been no alternative accommodation. A national standard of accommodation has been arrived at in agreement, and in consultation, with the housing authorities and with medical officers of health all over the country. It has two foundations: decency, the separation of the sexes over 10 years of age, and space, that there is enough accommodation for each person. If hon. Members will look at the First Schedule they will see that the method of arriving at the standard is to say there shall be so many persons per room and then to correct that by reference to rooms below a certain size. That standard will require the most careful examination by the House.
On this occasion I would only make this observation, that the standard which we lay down now need not be regarded as the ultimate ideal to which we should work. The standard which we lay down now is one upon which it is possible to begin to get this reform under way, and I propose it as a reasonable and practical standard on which to base the commencement of our labours. It will be necessary to preserve a due measure of elasticity in the standard at first, because if we made it too rigid it might break down. Hon. Members will find in the Bill a provision for ensuring a certain elasticity in the standard. In the first place, the Minister of Health can make temporary extensions in the standard for districts which, owing to their particular conditions, cannot be readily fitted into the national standard at once. The particular conditions may be that there is in a particular neighbourhood a large proportion of specially big rooms, as there is in some parts of London. But as this is a matter which closely affects the national conscience, and to make sure that the exercise of the Minister's discretion is not arbitrary, we propose that extensions of the standard shall be laid down on the advice of the new Housing Advisory Committee, which is to be called into existence. The second provision for elasticity is to enable local authorities to deal with particular cases, where hardship would arise by a rigid enforcement of the standard, by means of licences, in such a case as that of temporary residents or the influx of workmen into a neighbourhood for temporary work, when permanent accommodation need not be provided.
After laying down a national standard of accommodation the next necessary step is to survey the conditions in order to ascertain where and to what extent there is overcrowding in excess of that standard. This survey will be carried out by the housing authorities, and will give us, for the first time, an accurate knowledge of the extent of the evil with which we are dealing, and the steps which are necessary for its remedy.
How long will it take?
That will depend very much on whether the area is large or small. In the smaller areas it may take only a few weeks, but in the larger areas more time will be taken. Under the Bill there is power given to the Minister to fix the time in which each authority, according to its conditions, must complete the survey. After the surveys, the next step will be the presentation of schemes by the local authorities for dealing with all overcrowding as ascertained by their surveys by the provision of the accommodation which it is necessary to find for those who are overcrowded. On that I would emphasise the following points. The initiative is with the local housing authorities. They alone have the knowledge necessary to put forward practical schemes. It will be for them to say how many dwellings are required, where they are required, and of what kind, whether they be flats or houses. The general control exercised by the Ministry will be only to make sure that their schemes are efficient, and meet the needs of their case.
The initiative for the schemes must be with the local authorities. I mention in that connection the requirements in respect of flats, and point out the following consideration. There is no prejudice in my mind, or in the mind of the Government, or that of the Ministry of Health, in favour of flats. On the contrary, it is recognised that there are parts of the country which have a strong prejudice against them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I quite recognise that is the case. I, myself, believe that prejudice to be based upon the fact that the original blocks of workers' dwellings and blocks of flats which were first constructed in the slums were thoroughly bad, badly designed, badly laid down and did not make proper provision for air and space and the amenities of life. I find, however, that wherever the good modern flat has been introduced, that prejudice breaks down. It is impossible for one who has not studied the subject to realise what enormous strides have been made in the technique of flat construction even in the course of the last 10 years. I venture to say that to-day the modern well-designed fiat to many families means more of a dwelling than does a small house. I say there is no prejudice in their favour, but the logic of facts has to be recognised. It is impossible to make use of the central areas to which I have referred, where overcrowding is characteristically present, to their full economic extent without building to some degree upward in the form of blocks of flats. You cannot make economic use of the space without such building. Let it not be thought that I am speaking of blocks of skyscrapers on the American model. Personally, I would never agree to such construction for wage-earners. I am thinking in general of blocks of an average of three or four storeys, and in exceptional cases of five storeys.
I come to an essential part of the plan of this Measure. I have said already that I believe it is impossible adequately to deal with the overcrowding evil without tackling it in the characteristic form in which we find it in the old central areas of towns—areas where expensive sites are wasted by bad development and bad construction, and that we shall be making a plan which will not succeed unless we make special provision for dealing with such areas themselves. What are the provisions we propose? They will be found in the Clauses which deal with the new re-development areas as they are defined. The intention there is that the housing authorities should come on to the scene and boldly take over into their own hands the central overcrowded, badly constructed, badly developed areas, and, having taken them over, should clear them to the extent that is necessary; that they should re-develop them as regards the lay-out so as to make the most economic use of the sites, and then reconstruct or rebuild so as to house the greatest possible number of wage-earners on those sites under proper conditions.
I will give an instance of the kind of area which we must have in mind in contemplating this picture. It is one of those areas of old, middle-class property which has come down to us. All those who labour in this field know that one of the most difficult problems we have is the old, middle-class property area which is now let off in dwellings of four, five or six flats to a house to wage-earning families, with the result that you have families to that number, whatever it may be, living in a house which has only got establishment equipment for one. That is responsible for some of the darkest splashes on our housing conditions. In the wide sense there is only one way to deal with those properties in due time, and that is to sweep them away and reconstruct them as dwellings appropriate to wage earners, where the full amenities of life are separated for each family.
There is another aspect of this problem which has to be considered in this connection. When you are dealing with areas such as those for the provision of wage-earners' houses, you find a certain kind of property which is not a slum. It is too good to be pulled down, but is not at present up to a proper standard but it can be made suitable by the treatment we summarise in the single word, "re-conditioning," that is, improving the structure and attending to such matters as damp courses, by putting in amenities such as water closets and bathrooms, and attending to drainage, light and air and all other works of that sort. There is a good deal of useful work of that kind to be done in the areas to which I refer, and we include that in the provisions of this Bill.
What are those provisions? Powers are given to housing authorities to take over slum houses in re-development areas and deal with them under the same provisions as in the 1930 Act, and to redevelop, pull down, reconstruct and recondition other houses wherever necessary. The general provisions with regard to re-conditioning were most closely studied by a committee composed of Members of this House, of which the chairman was Lord Moyne, and the provisions as regards re-conditioning are based upon the recommendations of that committee. I would like to acknowledge the very great assistance which the extremely practical recommendations of that committee in this respect have been to the Government. We have there a full list of powers for the housing authorities, of standards to work on, of surveys which give them the knowledge for taking over, re-developing and re-conditioning the areas on these lines. I think the House will see at this point more clearly perhaps than it has been shown before, why it is essential that these duties, this heavy burden of responsibility should be placed upon the local housing authorities, and not upon some outside or special body created for the purpose. It will be observed that what we are contemplating is nothing less than the reconstruction, to a large extent, of the bad old cores of the inner areas of our great towns. It is a task which will require for its successful treatment complete control over the destinies of the town in the matter of its services, complete control over the laying out of streets, the provision of sewers, light and power and all other services of the town, and it will require, above all, complete control of the function of the planning of the town. It is a matter of the first consideration that these schemes should be carried out in close relation to proper schemes of planning of the town as a whole. These powers can be exercised only by the local authority which is actually responsible for all these matters, and, since finance is involved in the manner which I will shortly describe, they can only be discharged by the authority which is also responsible for the finances of the town and is responsible to the ratepayers for the rates, and the charges upon the rates.
If such be the plan of campaign under which we advance towards the conquest of overcrowding, there is one most important particular in which the picture yet remains to be cleared up, and that is the provision by which it is proposed to enforce the new standard, and a scheme such as we are confronting, in its magnitude and wide scope, cannot be expected to be effective unless supported by all the force of the law. One fact, of course, emerges in the very forefront—that if you are going to make it a legally punishable offence to overcrowd a house in excess of the standard, you must not make it an offence which it is impossible to evade; in other words, you cannot compel people to leave a house if there is nowhere else to go to. That is the first consideration we have to bear in mind.
Let me describe the provisions which are proposed to deal with that situation. In the first place, it will be a punishable offence to overcrowd a house. That offence will be, first of all, that of the occupier of the house who is actually responsible for the persons living in the house. In the second line—and the second line only—it will also be an offence if the landlord does anything which he ought reasonably not to do which conduces to overcrowding, or if he leaves undone that which he reasonably ought to do which conduces to overcrowding. It is not, of course, made an offence on the part of the landlord if anything happens over which he has no control.
Now we have to deal with the position of those who are already living in overcrowded houses and have nowhere at present to go. It is proposed that we shall have an appointed day under the Bill, and after that appointed day any fresh overcrowding, will be a punishable offence against the law. But any overcrowding which existed before the appointed day will be protected against prosecution; all existing occupants will be protected when the offence first comes into existence. They will be protected unless and until the person who would otherwise have committed an offence is made an offer of alternative accommodation which is reasonable for his purpose. By "reasonable" is meant reasonable from the point of view of space and room to accommodate his family without over- crowding; reasonable from the point of view of situation, that is, not too far from where he wants to live; and reasonable from the point of view of rent. If he refuses that accommodation and continues to live in overcrowded conditions, he may lose his protection. There is also special protection for an occupant whose house becomes overcrowded owing to a child reaching the prescribed age.
I think the House will see what the effect of that provision is. We make sure that, without hardship to any existing occupants, with due safeguards to the existing interests, overcrowding shall be reduced and that once overcrowding has been reduced there shall be no backsliding in the direction of overcrowding again. Any provisions less stringent than those must, I am afraid, fail in their purpose.
I have dealt with the outline of the Bill. Let me pass to the important Clauses relating to finance. I would say a general word about the relation of subsidies to overcrowding. I think there could be no justification for proposing or supporting any permanent system under which this essential of life, the home, could not be obtained without the assistance of a State subsidy, that we should be entirely opposed to any Measure which made such subsidisation of rents a permanent burden upon the National Exchequer or upon local rates. But the measures which we are now proposing are not of that character. What we are dealing with is a legacy of bad conditions from the past. We are engaged in an energetic continuous effort to put these conditions right for the future, so that when they have been put right we may resume an even economic keel. But we have to recognise that if we are to overtake that legacy of the past we cannot get on to the even economic keel unless we are prepared to assist by subsidies the effort that is to be undertaken by this generation. It is, in short, a non-recurrent effort to overtake the past which cannot be achieved without some assistance from the State. We must also recognise that it is a feature of that effort that we have to re-house the lowest paid classes of the wage-earners and that we have to re-house them very largely upon the most expensive central sites. That is a condition of the problem. Cer- tainly that task cannot be undertaken without the assistance of subsidies from the State.
There is another aspect of this general question of subsidies that has to be apprehended. Just as this is a non-recurrent effort and should not land us in any permanent subsidising of rates, so there is no intention whatever of returning to the system of general subsidies. That system failed. We have had general subsidies since the War and we have built 2,500,000 houses, and yet we have slums and overcrowding as bad as ever. It is only by the more scientific system of controlled subsidies directed to the immediate cure of the evil that we have managed to get under way with the cure of the slums. The present Measure is an extension of that system; it is an extension of the system of controlled subsidies directed towards the end in view. It is our purpose not to hinder action but to make sure that in return for public money and effort we are actually getting the evil put right, that the money is actually used for re-housing the overcrowded.
In the past there has been a good deal of criticism, not wholly unjustified, to the effect that the houses produced by subsidy have not on the whole gone to the classes which most needed them. It is commonly said, and commonly true, that they have not gone to the lowest paid wage-earners, who most need subsidised rents, but to the better paid wage-earners. That is, of course, completely contrary to the spirit and intention of this legislation, and the contrary effect we shall secure by the express provision that the preference for all subsidised houses shall be given to those who are living under slum conditions or overcrowded conditions or under bad housing conditions. Until those preferences have been satisfied by the housing authorities the houses built will not be considered to be freely at their disposal.
Those are the general conditions under which subsidies can be justified and are necessary. I refer now to the more particular provisions of the Bill. We are imposing the duty on the housing authorities of providing the additional accommodation, and we must make sure that they have the means of fulfilling that duty. So we take as our general basis this rule, that subsidies shall be pro- vided by the State wherever they are necessary to enable houses to be built at rents which are appropriate to the tenants for whom they are intended. We have to consider two special cases. There are the flats on the more expensive sites. They cannot possibly be built at economic rents without a subsidy. We provide an automatic subsidy related to the cost of the site. Again, in the case of the agricultural workers, it is quite impossible to provide new houses on an economic basis at rents which they can pay in view of the general level of agricultural wages. So there again the subsidy is automatic in the case of houses for agricultural workers.
Then we come to the other and more general case of dwellings to be built on less expensive sites. What is the state of affairs there? At the present time there are many cases in which you can provide dwellings on an economic basis at rents appropriate to the tenants without the help of a subsidy. Where that is so it is impossible to justify a subsidy. In other cases it cannot be done owing to special conditions, that is to say, you cannot provide houses on the less expensive sites at the appropriate rent without imposing an undue burden on the rates. In those cases subsidy is necessary in order to achieve the end of the Bill, and in those cases subsidy will be provided. The provisions in question merit the most careful attention. Putting on one side the automatic subsidies to flats and agricultural cottages, any housing authority is in a position to come to the Minister and say, "We cannot provide the small houses which we need for re-housing our overcrowded population at the appropriate rents without the assistance of some subsidy." If they establish that case a subsidy is given. I do not think there is any question that that is the most reasonable and practical way of dealing with a situation in cases in which a subsidy is necessary.
Then take the other cases where it is necessary. What are the circumstances which will be considered in deciding whether a subsidy shall be granted or not? The House will find them most carefully defined in Clause 29 of the Bill. One has to take into consideration the existing rate burden, any exceptional costs in the area in question which make the house more expensive, and the fact that there is a large percentage of large families to be provided for, or, finally, one has to consider that owing to the economic state of industry in an area rents lower than the normal rents with which we are generally concerned have to be charged to the tenant. Those are the conditions which may make the case for a subsidy a special case in connection with small houses.
The distribution of the burden between the housing authority and the central authority follows the lines familiar to us in legislation. We divide the burden into three parts. Two parts are borne by the central authority and one part by the rates. The total contribution from public money to the new accommodation is this: Two-thirds comes from the Exchequer and one-third from the rates. That is so in all cases except in the case of agricultural cottages. In those cases you have to temper the wind. There the proposal is that the contribution from the housing authority shall be £1 per house and another £1 from the county council, and that a subsidy which begins at £2 and rises to a very generous maximum of £8, which will cover all possible cases, shall be provided by the State.
The House will see that I have left unfilled in this picture one of the most constructive and important aspects of this financial scheme. Subsidies are directed to the purpose of reducing rents to the appropriate level, that is rent levels appropriate to the tenants. Of course, the question arises, what is that proper level? I will give the key to the whole finance of the Bill in a single phrase. Under the finance of the Bill the subsidies are designed on a basis of producing for the overcrowded tenant a house or dwelling, a flat or house, which will let at an inclusive rent of round about 10s. That is a rent inclusive of rates, or about 7s. without the rates. In rural areas the corresponding figures will be from 3s. to 5s., appropriate to the local conditions. That figure of 10s. is a figure which has been commonly accepted as the goal towards which we ought to work by housing reformers of all shades of opinion. It is substantially lower than the goal, as to rent, which has been set up under other Bills which provided for subsidies in the past.
Let me make it clear that when I say round about 10s., I am not saying that that is a figure which has to be produced in every single case. I could not accept as a criticism of the financial provisions that there is this case or that case in which that level was not actually attained. That—or even less—is what will be attained in the normal case, taking the country as a whole. I believe I can justify, on the figures before me, the proposition that the rents secured by these subsidies will in the normal case work out at something under 10s. But in such a city as London the rent will be more. As rents are normally higher and expenses greater, the normal in London will work out at something like a few pence over 11s. say 11s. 4d., and that may also apply in the case of other cities where rents are high. That I say is a general standard taking the country as a whole, and taking the subsidy upon the average.
On what size of flat is that estimate based?
The basis in the case of flats is the two-roomed flat which raises a most interesting question and one to which I was about to refer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Two bedrooms?"] Yes, two bedrooms. Hon. Members by reference to that most interesting report of the Registrar-General to which I have referred will learn another conspicuously interesting fact about housing conditions which is not I think generally recognised, and that is how small is the average family with which we have to deal. The average size of family in this country has now fallen to 3.7, and we have the most significant fact that owing to the very big preponderance of families consisting of three and two persons the average size of dwellings which we have to provide is substantially less than might be supposed, on a mere superficial investigation. Let me point out that the subsidy earned by the housing authority will be the same in respect of every dwelling which is provided whether it is large or small. It will be for the housing authority to say what size of dwellings it requires to accommodate those who are overcrowded or otherwise living under bad conditions. When it has established its case for a certain size of dwelling, whether two-roomed, three-roomed, four-roomed or five-roomed it draws the same subsidy for all the houses, great or small.
The right hon. Gentleman just now referred to a two-roomed flat. Does that mean a flat with two bedrooms or with one bedroom?
Two bedrooms and a sitting room. It is generally referred to as a two-roomed flat, but the current phraseology in that respect may be misleading. I think the House will see my point. It is for the housing authority to say what dwellings of what size it requires. It then draws subsidy to the same amount for every building, and the amount of the subsidy is worked out for the country as a whole.
Let me now refer to the application of these provisions to agriculture. It would not be easy but it would be possible to work out a series of elaborate provisions for the special application of this Bill to agriculture, but the more closely one regarded its provisions the more one became convinced that that would be unnecessary, and indeed wrong, and that the right way of dealing with the agricultural position was boldly to bring the agricultural areas into the general scope of the Measure, to say that the same principle should apply to every house in the country, and then to make only those adaptations in respect of the agricultural cottage which were found necessary. Those adaptations are, first, the bigger subsidy to which I have referred, rendered necessary by the wider gap between wages and rents, and secondly, such adjustments as are necessary to meet the great variety of conditions in agricultural areas as regards type of house, amount of rent, and so forth.
It is proposed to deal with these by establishing a second committee on lines which will be familiar to the House—on the lines of the Tudor Walters Committee—which will have the task of settling the appropriate subsidy required in each agricultural area in order to meet these varying conditions. Wide elasticity in administration will be required to make this Bill as effective and as useful as it can be, as it ought to be, and as I hope it will be in relation to agricultural conditions. Wide elasticity of administration is necessary in order to allow for essential differences between the conditions of life among the agricultural population and among the town population, and I think that hon. Members on examination will find that there is ample scope for such elasticity in the provisions of the Bill.
There is one other aspect of the finance of the Bill to which I would make a brief reference. It is a somewhat technical matter but is of the highest significance. There has been some wastage of housing energy and housing finance in the past owing to the fact that under the long series of housing Measures passed by Parliament each State subsidy has been segregated for the work of one particular Measure, so that we have had the 1919 subsidy applicable only to 1919 houses, the 1923 subsidy applicable only to 1923 houses, and so on. The subsidy in each of these Measures has been applicable only to the houses constructed under that Measure, and the result has been a great wastage of effort and of efficiency, and also the abuse which is so familiar to Members of the House of differential rents. Different rents had to be charged for houses which were exactly similar but on different sides of the street simply because they had been built under different conditions. It has been my ambition ever since I came into contact with these problems to get rid of this hindrance in the way of good government, and it is proposed to do so under this Bill by pooling all the subsidies on the one side and pooling all the houses on the other so that the whole resources of State subsidies and local rate subsidies can be used at discretion by the housing authorities and applied to the whole pool of houses provided, subject only to certain general restrictions the most important of which I have already mentioned, namely the restriction as to a preference in favour of slum dwellers or others living under bad housing conditions.
There is one other most important matter in this connection to which reference must be made. The subsidies under the 1930 Act are admittedly very large. Indeed, I believe that some housing authorities have found them embarrassingly large. In order that there may be the greatest possible head of energy, of courage, and of confidence for the slum clearance campaign, there has been no question of making a reduction in the subsidy. Hitherto, housing authorities have felt some lack of confidence owing to the fact that at the periodical revision that subsidy might be reduced. In order to remove such a fear from their minds it is proposed to stabilise that slum clearance subsidy for the five year campaign and to give complete confidence to the local authorities by the assurance that they will have full measure of support from the 1930 Act during the course of the campaign. Owing to the new pooling arrangement there will be surpluses in the case of some authorities which they will find a help in undertaking their new duties of dealing with overcrowding under this Measure.
Is it to be national pooling or local authority pooling?
It is to be pooling for each housing authority.
If there be a surplus, will it be possible to have any equalisation in regard to the economic rent which may have to be raised?
If I understand the hon. Member's question he wishes to know what is to be the power of the housing authority as regards adjustment of rents. Subject to the general restrictions which he will find in Clause 40 of the Bill, the answer is that the power will be the same as it is at present. There will be no restriction on the power of the local authority to make rebates on the rents subject to those restrictions. The pooling arrangement ought to be of the greatest possible assistance to the housing authorities in carrying out the campaign.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything as to the rate of interest which is to be paid on the loans?
I am not sure to what loans the hon. Member refers, but if he refers to loans from the Public Works Loans Commissioners I am glad to say that there has been a steady reduction in the rate of interest of late and the Treasury has now seen its way to reduce it as low as three and a-quarter per cent. enabling authorities to get money on the best terms available in any market in the world. I now pass on to some other provisions of the Bill which, though not part of the central machinery, are of the greatest importance. We have in this country great forces of housing effort and energy in the voluntary associations, and public utility societies which organise and bring to bear upon housing a great mass of experience and knowledge, and also bring to it particular gifts. These are the gifts of intimate personal concern, and of special knowledge of special areas, and it must ever be a point of policy in developing housing effort to ensure that the very best use is made of those organisations.
We propose in the Bill to take every practicable measure to develop that voluntary effort to the utmost. We are proceeding on the basis of encouraging co-operation between the housing authorities and the voluntary associations and public utility societies. I should not agree with the proposition that it was possible to achieve anything in housing by bringing public utility societies on to the scene as rival or alternative housing authorities to the regular housing authorities. But that there is a future of increased effort and of growing utility for co-operation between those bodies and the housing authorities I am sure, if proper means are taken to secure it. We propose to enlarge the opportunities of these societies. We have as a matter of fact drafted in the Bill a kind of charter for these bodies defining their position in this matter. They are to be in a position in which by co-operation and agreement with the housing authorities they can take over any part of the work of the housing authorities which is designed for them under the law—re-housing for slum clearance, re-development, re-conditioning, provision of fresh accommodation and other forms of housing effort.
It is in connection with re-conditioning that some of the most useful and characteristic work of the public utility societies has been done, but I would by no means limit their activity to that branch of effort. Their opportunities should be extended to all branches of housing effort. It is proposed to take a particularly practical step in this connection by providing fresh facilities for them to obtain the working capital which they require for their work. Let me make it clear, however, that, as regards subsidy from the rates, they will stand where they arrange to stand with the housing authorities. It will be open to the housing authority to make any contribution to them from the rates of which it approves. As regards Exchequer subsidy they will stand in exactly the same position as the housing authorities. In addition to that, however, it is the provision of working capital which is of particular moment to them and we have taken measures in that respect. The Public Works Loans Board will now be authorised to advance up to 75 per cent. of the value of their property instead of the previous two-thirds. In addition by a provision which, I think, is well-designed for the purpose, we have found means of securing for them the possibility of borrowing up to 90 per cent. If a local authority gives a guarantee in respect of a loan such a guarantee will enable the Public Works Loans Commissioners to increase the loan up to 90 per cent., which I think is the maximum which should be provided from public funds, so as to retain some interest on the part of the society in good management. In that connection, I look to an active campaign for the promotion of these societies. We welcome the formation of a new central body to represent these societies, and I have taken power in the Bill to give the most practical form of encouragement to the new central body to look after the housing associations by making a contribution to their expenses during the anxious period of the first five years.
On another heading—headings tumble over each other in importance in this Bill; I can refer to them only, and the time that I have to devote to them is not by any means equivalent to their importance—when you have built new houses and abolished old slums, you must prevent the creation of new slums, and there is no measure more important for this purpose than to secure good management of the good new houses. It is marvellous to see the results that can be obtained by raising the tenants' outlook on life, in making good their attack upon better conditions of living or, to put it on a lower level, in maintaining the property of the owners. It is marvellous to see what can be done to that end by the adoption of humane, well-considered measures for welfare work and for what is so well known to us all as the Octavia Hill system of rent collection. Good management is an essential condition of all ownership of such property and without it we shall not get the full benefit of this Measure.
We want to inaugurate a new era by introducing into our law a new possibility, the possibility that public housing estates of this sort shall be transferred to more permanent bodies as managers, who will be able to give them more continuous attention, by developing a more continuous policy in management, by closer attention and by more professional knowledge of the business of management than can often be given by the elected committee of a representative body; and so we take powers for the housing authorities to appoint permanent bodies of management commissioners. Let me make it clear that this is an optional power at present, and that it is a power which will preserve these management commissioners as servants of the public authorities.
The next new organ which is proposed is the provision of a Central Housing Advisory Committee for the following purposes, namely, to assist in the establishment on sound lines of the bodies of management commissioners, and generally to advise me in all housing matters and to provide me with a wider basis of knowledge and experience. There is one matter in particular in which I look for assistance from this new Central Housing Advisory Committee. The brightest hopes, in the future, of reducing costs and accelerating building lie in the direction of the better organisation of the provision of building materials. There is much to be done in such technical matters as the standardisation and simplification of parts in building, in the grouping of orders so as to obtain the best prices for mass orders instead of worse prices for smaller ones. This is an effort which is to be continuously applied in order to counter any tendency towards a rise in prices as this housing effort steadily increases, and in this effort I look to the greatest assistance from this new Central Housing Advisory Committee, on which I propose that there should be a strong element of men of business experience, who can bring in that particular region of knowledge which we need for developing our measures in that regard.
I come finally to measures which refer to the position of owners in relation to their property. It has been a legitimate complaint on the part of owners that they have not had full opportunities for de- veloping their own land for housing estates, and they have been blamed for not doing what they could not do and what they desired to do. It will be seen that the Bill makes proposals in order to facilitate an owner, by agreement with the housing authority, coming in and doing this developing work to which I refer on his own account, and by assisting him to get over the stile of the Rents Restriction Act which has been an obstacle in the past. In the second place, it has been a legitimate complaint on the part of the owners that they have never known, when they put a house in repair, whether the day afterwards it might not be expropriated under some Act of Parliament, and that is, of course, a most legitimate complaint from a business point of view. The Bill proposes that an owner may go to the local authority with a schedule of works to be carried out, and, when he has carried them out, that he shall obtain protection for a term of years from being expropriated from his property
Finally, I come, in this connection of the owners, to another aspect of the matter, which has no relation to overcrowding, but which does relate to the work of slum clearance. As the slum clearance campaign has been developed, as the effort has been intensified, as we have multiplied, as I have said, by 30 times the rate at which we have been working, we have found that new strains have been thrown on the machinery, and we have found certain imperfections in the basis of compensation under the 1930 Act which undoubtedly stand in the way of the free operation of that Act. We have before us here a task that is going to strain the energies of the whole country, and for its performance we need the good will of public opinion, but we shall not have that good will for any effort of the sort unless we satisfy public opinion that we are doing no particular injury to any particular class of the community. I am concerned to get this work done, and in order to get the work done, I propose that there should be no hesitation in remedying any inequity which we find and which may be contained in the machinery which we are administering.
I find, in the first place, that the following alterations in the basis of the 1930 Act are required to be made—that no house should be included in a clearance area and made subject to the site value basis of compensation which is in itself a good house and fit for occupation. Let me explain to the House that under the present administration of that Act, that is not being done; we are not including such houses on a site value basis of compensation. But it is said to me, "To-morrow your successor may reverse the policy under the Act of 1930." True; that is possible, but I propose to put the temptation out of the way of myself and my successors.
On another matter, I think there is also a change to be made in order to prevent injustice. The House knows that at the present time, when a site is taken for re-housing, the arbitrator is directed to limit its value to its value for re-housing purposes. That is practically confiscating a part of the true market value of the site. I have never been able to reconcile my mind to that principle, and I propose that we should clear the front of slum clearance by cancelling that provision. Most important of all these provisions, there has been complaint of inequity as regards the working of the site value basis of compensation in several parts of the country, and indeed there has been a very clear expression of opinion, and there has also been prolonged inquiry on my part and on the part of my officers. I find that these complaints are due, at bottom, to this reason, that the 1930 Act and the site value basis of compensation for slum clearance make no difference between the good landlord who has done his best with a bad house and the bad landlord who has done nothing. There has been no difference as between the good fellow who has striven to keep his house up to standard and the extortioner, the heartless brute, who has squeezed every penny out of his tenants. I do not think that can be justified, and I think we must introduce that consideration into the compensation payable. That is what is proposed. We propose to give an allowance by way of compensation to the good landlord in contradistinction to the bad. As regards the question of retrospection, we cannot put the clock back. We can only go back to the point at which it is practicable to make it retrospective.
I have now come to the end of my account of the provisions of the Bill. They are complex, because they are novel, they are closely interlocked, they are the result of long consultation, and they are designed for the single purpose of making this Measure effective. The whole business of re-building will proceed rapidly. Let me make this clear, that there is no reason why building under the Bill should not begin at once. Indeed, building houses to re-house the occupants of overcrowded houses can start from the very outset, as soon as this House makes this Measure law. From the time when the Bill is passed this process will begin and proceed with the utmost speed along what I believe to be the certain path of securing a remedy for the evils with which we are faced. The housing authorities, I am confident, will view the Measure with that enthusiasm and efficiency which we are accustomed to expect from them and which we are used to see from them in measures of social reform of this sort.
If there is any doubt in the minds of any with regard to profiteers and as to what the standard under the Bill is to be, I will say to them, "Argue the standard and see that it is a just one, but once you have agreed that the standard is a just one, you cannot justify anybody in extracting a profit from a lower standard than that which has been agreed upon as the proper standard of accommodation for our national purposes." If anyone thinks that this Bill will impose an undue infringement on the general liberty of the subject, I will say again that the truest liberty can only be obtained by a self-denying ordinance which makes people voluntarily agree on certain measures of restriction which are necessary, in order that we may enjoy the maximum benefit to be obtained from living under proper housing conditions. We have now before us a great task. We have exceptionally favourable circumstances for achieving a great aim. I am confident that if the House adopts this Measure, we can, by continuous, courageous, persistent effort, obtain by these means, and these means alone, a permanent raising of the standard of our civilisation.
4.59 p.m.
I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
The Bill is a confession of the failure of the housing policy of the Government. It is a complete reversal of the policy which has hitherto been applied to housing. I remember in the very early days of this Government how my two successors, of whom the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was one, exploited the financial situation in order to dissuade local authorities from carrying out their housing programmes. That is a matter of fact which cannot be denied, and many local authorities, only too anxious to get rid of their responsibilities, were prepared to forgo their housing programme and to save the rates in order to save the nation from the financial crisis. I also remember that this Government's first contribution to the solution of the housing problem was deliberately to strike a blow against better housing conditions for the agricultural workers. One of the last Acts placed on the Statute Book by the last Government was a Measure which it was my privilege to introduce—the Housing (Rural Authorities) Act. It made provision, in addition to the ordinary building programme of local authorities, for the erection of a further 40,000 cottages in rural areas, towards the cost of which I had in my pocket £2,000,000—metaphorically, for if I had had it really I should have taken it away when I went out of office in 1931 and kept it for its purpose—as a contribution from the State. The present Government never meant to implement that experiment and they never lifted a finger to do it. They deliberately went out of their way to discourage it, and instead of these 40,000 rural cottages which could have been built and occupied two years ago, less than 2,000 have been built.
Now the Minister comes forward with a new grant for rural housing. There are 38,000 rural families who are living under abominable housing conditions and who might, if the right hon. Gentleman had implemented the 1931 Act, have been living under good conditions. His next step was to repeal the subsidy given under the 1924 Housing Act which was passed by my old friend John Wheatley, with whom I was associated in the 1924 Government. What was the object of the Government as described by the right hon. Gentleman in the House of Commons? His object, like that of the Conservative Government of 1923, was to re-establish private enterprise as the primary agent in the building of working-class houses. I will not quote the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but if hon. Members like to have quotations I have them here. How often have we heard that speech; we have heard it from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and from the Postmaster-General. It is the story of the iniquity of subsidies, and how subsidies raise prices and stop building, and how they are a curse to a solution of the problem of working-class houses. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1923, in introducing his Housing Bill of that year, said the one way to solve this problem was to liberate the forces of private enterprise. He tried to do it. His effort failed, for private enterprise did not respond.
The present Minister, another knight errant, said in 1932 that he would conclude this abomination of public enterprise and re-establish private enterprise; and he talked about releasing the forces of private enterprise to solve this problem. He even quoted—it is an astonishing thing to me that he should have done so—a body called the National Federation of House Builders. Of course they would say they could do the job; that is what they are for. The right hon. Gentleman, taking this very feeble evidence in support of his early Victorian economic principles, to which I have had to refer before and which he has illustrated again this afternoon, abolished the subsidy under the 1924 Act. In the year ending 30th September, 1931, something like 195,000 houses were built in England and Wales. Of that number, 60,000 were built by local authorities with State aid, and every one was built to be let, and, because of the State aid, the rents were obviously lower than the private builder could possibly provide. In the year ending March, 1932, local authorities had built with State aid about 67,000 houses. The Government have cut off that supply of houses by abolishing the subsidy, by discouraging local authorities from carrying out housing apart from slum clearance. By putting the responsibility on to private enterprise the Government did in fact deprive the country, not merely of 67,000 houses per year, but of a growing number of local authority houses per year built to let. The Rural Housing Act was butchered by this Government and 38,000 houses which might have been built have not been built. Private enterprise has not filled the gap left by the action of the Government in not implementing that Act and their action in abolishing the subsidy under the Act of 1924.
Therefore, the Government now come to the House with an entirely new scheme, which is a complete change of policy on the part of His Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman's speech to-day bears no resemblance whatever to the housing speeches he has made since 1931. He is now justifying subsidies. It is a most astonishing thing to do, because in 1931, 1932, 1933, and even in 1934, he believed that subsidies were born of the devil, that they were bad things, that they increased the cost of houses and interfered with the free play of private enterprise. Yet the result of his own policy has been so disastrous from the Government's point of view that they have had to go back on their tracks and reintroduce a housing subsidy apart from slum clearance. I must give the right hon. Gentleman credit for the fact that up to now he has not destroyed the principles of the Bill for which I was largely responsible, the Housing Bill of 1930. I have always felt, however, that if the right hon. Gentleman really believed that slum clearance was a business proposition he would have handed it over to private enterprise also. He did not do it because it would not pay. He has now discovered that those friends in the private building industry on whom he relied have failed him, and he comes back to the House, not craving pardon for his mistake, but trying to find a way round his difficulties. With his inventive mind he has found a new form of subsidy—a subsidy for overcrowding. It is perfectly obvious to everybody that nine-tenths of the housing problem arises from the shortage of houses.
This idea of inventing something that is rather different from slum clearance but yet is not the Wheatley subsidy, something which is between slum clearance and a straight-forward housing subsidy, has brought the right hon. Gentleman here with a kind of subsidy which is absolutely indefensible. It is true that the slum problem is a special problem. It does not merely arise from the shortage of houses but I repeat, and I defy contradiction when I say, that as regards the problem of overcrowding, nine-tenths of it is a problem of the shortage of working-class houses. The right hon. Gentleman must have known that the whole purpose of the 1924 Housing Act was to remedy that shortage, and during the period he has been in office he has deprived the country of, at the least, 250,000 working-class houses to let under two Acts of Parliament. He now comes and says, "We must do something about overcrowding. We must have some special legislation to deal with overcrowding." The truth is that this invention of an overcrowding subsidy is an attempt on the part of the Government to save its face and to return to the policy which it was very ready to reject in 1932, and which was rejected in the 1933 Act. Now we have the right hon. Gentleman coming to the House again and sounding the trumpet for another crusade. Upon my word, at times I feel that I had nothing whatever to do with the Act of 1930. I am really beginning to believe that the right hon. Gentleman inspired it and was the author of it. He has gone on now for nearly three and a-half years claiming all credit for it, saying that this Government engineered and organised this great crusade.
Now we are to have another crusade against overcrowding. The difference between this crusade and the original crusade and the five years' programme of which we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman to-day—but which I invented myself in 1930, so far as housing is concerned—is that this Bill happens to be a little nearer a General Election. Now, I do not want to impute political motives to hon. Members. No, I will not, because we are all interested in the housing problem, but I am bound to say I think that the right hon. Gentleman has been very slow in developing this two-fold programme. He has told us this afternoon that this great programme of the National Government, the first part of which was invented by the previous Labour Government, is one which is necessary for dealing with the general housing situation. I wonder whether hon. Members can recollect the right hon. Gentleman ever foreshadowing this second stage of his great policy? All he did was to kill what was good in the Act of 1924 and the Act of 1931, to carry on the operative parts of the Act of 1930, because he dared not kill that, and to put his faith in the National Federation of House Builders and in private enterprise, with no word about this problem of overcrowding. Now, after all this time, he tries to convince the House that this is the second stage of a considered programme. Frankly, I do not believe it.
The right hon. Gentleman says that his proposals are novel proposals, but there is not very much in them that is really novel. I have not time to-night to deal in any detail with all the many problems and proposals contained in the Bill, and must confine myself to what I regard as its major features. The right hon. Gentleman is now leading his crusade against overcrowding, having, as I have pointed out, by his own deliberate policy during the last three years, substantially contributed to the amount of overcrowding which exists in the country. He has established standards of overcrowding. It is a very bold man who will put standards into black and white. I am not nearly so cautious as the right hon. Gentleman, but I should be a little wary about establishing standards of overcrowding, because the public will get it into their minds that people who are living under conditions slightly better than those laid down in the First Schedule of the Bill are not overcrowded. That would be a monstrous thing for the people of this country to believe. I think it is clear that the standards of the right hon. Gentleman are much too low. I can appreciate his difficulties—in fact, he says that these are standards which he will be prepared to postpone for some time—but the standards are low.
There may be difficulties in dealing with this problem, and I think it is bound to take time, but the right hon. Gentleman's standards as regards overcrowding are not standards which are tolerable in the twentieth century. He contemplates as a normal thing that living rooms should be used as bedrooms. I can never agree to that. I think it is wrong. The right hon. Gentleman has that possibility, or that probability, in his mind. If hon. Members will look in the Schedule they will find that it is possible, in the circumstances described by the right hon. Gentleman, for somebody in the family to have to sleep in the living room. I could give cases which would not be regarded under this Bill as overcrowding which reveal conditions which no hon. Member would tolerate for himself and his family; and, after all, that is a fair standard to take, because if hon. Members opposite are not prepared to live under certain conditions of overcrowding they have no right legally to establish a standard of that kind for other people. Take a three-room tenement. Normally it would not be regarded as overcrowded if it provided accommodation for five people, but if there were a man and wife and one boy and one girl both over 10 years of age—that is nearly the right hon. Gentleman's standard family of 3.7 individuals—they would need three bedrooms. I do not want to elaborate this point, but if hon. Members will look at the Bill they will find that it will accept, for the time being, as not overcrowding housing conditions which it would be a scandal for this House, as representing the British people, to accept.
There is not merely the question of the number of people per room, but the question of the size of rooms. The right hon. Gentleman and his immediate predecessor have done their best to establish a standard of working-class housing which gives a house of 760 superficial feet. That sized house will be no credit to the local authorities of this country 10 years from now, but under these standards and what is to be regarded as overcrowding the 760 feet house will become a palace. This is a further reduction of standard. It is putting ideas into the heads of people who build houses, including private builders, and our view is that these standards of overcrowding are much too low. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced towards the end of 1932 his Bill which "sold the pass" to the private builder and put local authorities out of action except as regards slum clearance, it is significant that the original draft submitted to the House contained no conditions as to the type or size of house or the number of houses to the acre. In 1932 he was prepared to hand over to private enterprise the building of working-class houses subject only to the moribund building regulations of local authorities, regulations which have never been used by them since the Housing Act of 1919. We had established a national standard of the number of houses to the acre, the type of house and the size of house, but so anxious was the right, hon. Gentleman to let his friends of the National Federation of House Builders loose on this problem, that under the Bill of 1932 they could have built 40 or 50 houses to the acre. Indeed, I am not sure that that organisation did not regard a provision of 12 houses to the acre as a scandal, as scandalously extravagant. They would have preferred to build 30 or 40.
It is significant that that happened in 1932. It is equally significant that when the right hon. Gentleman is doing his best to drive people living in congested areas into flat life—the first time this has been done by legislation, though there are provisions in the Act of 1930—no standard is established. I suppose that local authorities will fall back on their old building by-laws, which in the nature of things cannot apply to the building of flats more than two storeys high, and we deplore the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, in this enthusiasm of his for dealing with these people living in congested areas, has not given a thought to the standard of conditions under which they are to live when they leave those congested areas. We do not know whether there will be bathrooms, or even fixed baths, which had to be imposed on the right hon. Gentleman by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green in 1932. These flats, more than three storeys high, need not have a bathroom. They need not under the Act of 1933, though they must have a fixed bath; but in this Bill there is not even provision for a moveable one—no provision for a bath of any sort or kind. There is no provision that if these flats are six or seven storeys or more high the people on the upper storeys are to have a lift. This may seem all very well for hon. and right hon. Members who live in houses that do not need lifts, or live in service flats where there are lifts, but people who have to climb stairs every night, as I have—90 of them—would love a lift. If people are to be driven to live up in the skies as an alternative to having to travel to homes in outlying districts, then this Bill ought to prescribe means of transport up to their fifth and sixth floor flats.
Now I come to the question of subsidies. I am delighted to think that the right hon. Gentleman has now joined that long trail of Ministers of Health, almost everyone of whom, except the late Lord Melchett, has been responsible for a subsidy. From the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) to myself, Minister after Minister has been responsible for a subsidy. Now the Simon Pure who believes that subsidies are iniquitous, has come back to the House and back to the fold with a subsidy. We are glad that he is now show- ing signs of grace. We are glad that he has swallowed the words which he so gravely spoke in this House in 1932 and 1933. We are glad to think that he has joined the long list of people who were prepared to spend good public money on working-class houses, knowing in his heart that this will increase the cost of building. I hope that he has given grave thought to this, taking down his copy of Ricardo and his Adam Smith, and looking up the economists of the early days—that he has taken this step after very grave thought. We are glad that he has taken it. Our difficulty is that he has not stepped far enough. If he had stepped a little further in the way of subsidy, he might have done something more than this Bill is likely to achieve in dealing with overcrowding.
Under the Act of 1924 the State was paying, in respect of working-class houses built under that Act, £7 10s. per year for 40 years. The right hon. Gentleman, filled with the early economic ideas of a century and a half ago, abolished that Act. Agricultural parishes building houses under the Act of 1924 had a subsidy of £11 per year per house for 40 years. That went. It is just as well that hon. Members should keep those figures in mind, because the right hon. Gentleman is, in fact, dealing with the problem with which we set out to deal under the 1924 Act. Therefore, I commend to the House these figures, as they were inherited by the right hon. Gentleman. Under the Act of 1930, which has a certain resemblance to the present Bill, because in it we contemplated the possibility of building flats in large centres of population—not that I would wish to drive people there. I am not the kind of Mussolini that the right hon. Gentleman is proving to be in that respect, but we did make provision for this problem—and we invented a new kind of subsidy. Slum clearance being a special problem, that subsidy was based not on the number of houses built, but on the number of persons who were taken out of those horrible conditions and re-housed. That subsidy was £2 5s. per year per person for 40 years, and in agricultural parishes, following the precedent of the Act of 1924 and based, of course, on the poverty of those areas, the grant was £2 10s. per person per house for 40 years.
The then Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Adamson, and I, had only three or four areas in our mind—I am dealing now with England and Wales—such as London and Liverpool. I know sufficient of the conditions in the provinces to realise that flat building on a large scale would meet with a good deal of opposition, but in London and Liverpool, owing to special circumstances, it was perfectly clear that you had to make provision for tenement dwellings. It was because of that that where the cost of the land was over £3,000 per acre, as it almost invariably is in very large towns, in those centres where one might wish to re-house, the grant payable by the State was £3 10s. per person re-housed. I do not understand the Minister's 3.7. I have never seen a family of 3.7. I have seen a family of less than three persons, of three persons and of more than three persons. In London, Liverpool, Birmingham and the other big cities of this country, where land costs more than £3,000 per acre, and assuming a family of four persons re-housed, the State grant would be £14 per year for 40 years. The contribution of the local authorities was not to be any larger than £3 15s.
Now a word about the subsidy under the Housing (Rural Authorities) Act, 1931. I am sorry to have to keep referring to it, but I shall never forgive the right hon. Gentleman for slaughtering it. There was a grant of £2,000,000 for the building of 40,000 houses. An average subsidy of £50 per house—it was a variable subsidy—would have permitted me, on the advice of the Committee which was set up and which was very shortly sent about its business by the right hon. Gentleman, to pay the whole of the loss incurred by those local authorities whose resources out of rates would not permit them to build houses.
Is it not true that Sir Tudor Walters in the report of that Committee stated that he had gone into the matter and found that there was no means of using the subsidy, and that houses were being built without the subsidy?
That is a piece of secret history of which I have no knowledge. I only know that when the Bill was going through the House there was no more enthusiastic supporter of it than Sir Tudor Walters. If he changed his mind subsequently, with the change of atmosphere in the political situation, I cannot be responsible for that.
I was only asking for information. I think it was the actual report which he gave when he was sitting on that side and the right hon. Gentleman was sitting here.
If Sir Tudor Walters said that, I have no knowledge of it.
He reported to you.
Oh, no, he did not report to me. I was out of office then. I was out of office before any report was made by Sir Tudor Walters. I think I speak within the knowledge of the House when I say that there was no more passionate advocate of the proposals than Sir Tudor Walters, and it was because of his belief in them that I made him chairman of the committee to deal with the problem. If he got instructions from the right hon. Gentleman that he was not to build 40,000 houses but only 2,000, I cannot be responsible for his action. I understand that he limited his programme to 2,000 houses instead of the whole 40,000 which were arranged for under the Bill.
I should like to be clear on that point. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has said that 40,000 houses were allowed for under his Bill for the agricultural parishes, but there were only, I think, 7,000 applications from rural parishes, so how could 40,000 houses be provided?
Exactly. Of course, when I left office on 24th August, 1931, there was an entire change of policy. Local authorities were written to and advised not to proceed with housing schemes. If this drive and crusade of the right hon. Gentleman had been applied in 1931, we should have had all the 40,000 houses, but if you go round to the most Tory local authorities of the country, the rural district councils, and say, "We are facing a great national crisis; please do not build houses," they are only too willing to respond. If I had known that this point was arising, I could have brought correspondence on it.
It would have been rather interesting.
When it was known that the present Government were not in favour of the Act, what was the point of rural authorities going forward? I am not blaming the rural authorities, but I am blaming the Government who deliberately did everything they could to dissuade local authorities and to leave this Act derelict. I am quite satisfied that had the Act gone through, 40,000 houses would have been built. The fact that by 30th November, 1931, only 7,000 applications had been made, is due not to the local authorities but to the deliberate policy of the present Government in writing to them and saying, "We do not want you to build houses."
The statement of the right hon. Gentleman appears to be a misrepresentation. Apparently his statement is that the Government wrote to local authorities to dissuade them from building houses. There is not a shadow of foundation for that statement.
I repeat this statement, that the National Government did approach and did write to the local authorities with the deliberate intention of dissuading them from continuing their expenditure, and my recollection is that housing was specifically mentioned. I cannot call to mind what Department issued the circular, but I am pretty certain that it is within the knowledge of hon. Members that in the economy campaign in the summer and in September of 1931 the Government did definitely approach local authorities—I am not arguing the rights or wrongs of that policy at the moment, but am speaking on the facts—and attempted to dissuade the local authorities from continuing their public expenditure on housing and other matters. I am not in the dock this afternoon; it is the right hon. Gentleman who is in the dock. I am coming to the question of his subsidies, but I hope that hon. Members will keep in mind the subsidy that had been previously paid and those which the right hon. Gentleman brought to an end, as well as his own proposals for dealing with this matter.
I regard the right hon. Gentleman's subsidy for dealing with the specific problem, which he has so carefully de- fined and narrowed down as some new and special kind of housing, as inadequate. I will not weary the House with figures, but if hon. Members will work out the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman and compare them with the proposal contained in the 1930 Act for the building of flats upon expensive sites, they will find that this grant is a very small one. A site of £3,500 per acre, where you have, say, a family of four people, would, under the Act of 1930, get a State contribution of £14 per year for 40 years. The right hon. Gentleman gives £6. He explained that he followed well established precedents in requiring the local authority to contribute half the amount paid by the State. That is not an old precedent. Under the Wheatley Act and under the Act of 1930 the local authority was not called upon to pay one-half of what the State paid. Indeed, the disparity between the local authority's contribution and the State contribution is such that I think there is reasonable ground for believing that the effect of this will be to dissuade local authorities from building houses. As I have said, opportunities may arise when my hon. Friends on these benches, and perhaps on other benches, will work out the application of the right hon. Gentleman's grant and compare it with the grant payable under the Act of 1930. Then the right hon. Gentleman had another grant for cases where local authorities do not build on expensive land. There his grant is £5 per year for a maximum of 20 years—a miserably small grant. For agricultural areas, bearing in mind the Act of 1930 and the Act of 1924, the right hon. Gentleman's grant of anything from £2 to £8 a year for 40 years is surely an inadequate form of compensation.
The right hon. Gentleman said a word or two about rents, and rather retracted from the position which has been taken up in newspapers supporting the Government as to this Bill producing houses for people at an inclusive rent of 10s. We shall be able, perhaps, to pursue this problem a little further, but I would like to make this point: It has constantly been the charge of Conservative Ministers that subsidies raise prices but they have never proved it; their non sequiturs, post hocs and so on, have not really proved anything. But there is one thing that is certain, and that is, that where you are dealing with expensive site values and you have no method of protection, you may be quite sure that in the re-development of those areas the community will be rooked. I have been told by people who understand this problem more than I do that it would be no surprising thing if site values in these areas, in cities like London and Liverpool, increased by 50 per cent., and in that case the right hon. Gentleman's shabby little contributions to the cost will become relatively even smaller. I think it is perfectly clear that, on the basis of the possible cost of building houses on expensive sites, the right hon. Gentleman is not going to provide large numbers of people with houses at rents which are within their means.
There are two aspects of this Bill to which my hon. Friends and I take very considerable exception. We realise, of course, that housing associations have existed as public utility companies, and will continue, and we realise that local authorities will not, all of them, take on their definite responsibility to build houses at moderate rents; but what we object to is this deliberate invitation to local authorities to farm out their statutory housing responsibilities to housing associations. The proposal about house management commissions is, in my view, even worse. I am getting a little tired of hearing the sacred name of Octavia Hill quoted in this House. I see no reason why local authorities who have houses of their own should not accept direct responsibility for the management of those houses. We regard these two proposals as being in line with the policy which has been proposed by more than one member of the Conservative party. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) is not here to-day, but he is one of the leaders in this new process of de-municipalisation, of getting local authorities to shelve their responsibilities on to somebody else—to take housing out of politics, which means to put housing in the hands of charity organisation societies dominated by Tory views, and therefore non-political. These proposals, in our view, are wrong.
The right hon. Gentleman made his apologia for greater assistance to the slum landlords. I expected that that would happen in this Bill. I think the Conservative Party Conference last October gave marching orders to the Government, certainly to the Minister of Health, who was there. The opposition originated from Leeds, where there happens to be a Socialist housing authority. [An HON. MEMBER: "There will not be much longer."] My hon. Friend had better wait. I can only go on the reports in the "Morning Post" and the "Times," which I read again this morning with great interest, of a terrific attack on this Government for its Socialist housing legislation, and a demand that justice should be done to the landlords. When the right hon. Gentleman himself said, rightly, that if a house is unfit for human habitation it is worth nothing as a house, there was an interruption from a delegate: "Why?" That was the temper of the conference, and I am bound to come to the conclusion that there is a little bit of political interest behind these concessions which are being given to house property owners. We shall have more time to deal with these matters later on, but the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's concessions is that, by requiring local authorities to pay more to certain property owners, without himself making any special provision for it, he is going to throw greater responsibilities on to the local authorities, which they have either to face by increasing the rate burdens or by charging higher rents than would otherwise need to be paid. Every additional penny which goes to the property owner comes either from the mass of the ratepayers or from the tenants of publicly owned houses. Therefore, we are bound to oppose the Bill.
The Bill has had a very good Press; the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, saw to that; but the Bill is a case of much cry and little wool. It is not going to produce houses on a large scale. Its real political significance is that the Government are now bankrupt as regards their housing policy. The policy that they have hitherto followed has failed. The right hon. Gentleman's Act of 1933 has not produced 2,500 houses. I know that a large, number of houses have been built for sale. The Government's policy has failed, and they have now come back to the well beaten track of subsidies out of public funds to enable houses to be built at reasonable rents. For that admission we thank them. As for the greater part of the Bill, its proposals do not face the real problem, its financial assistance is inadequate, its call upon the local authorities is far too heavy. If this Government lives to see any results from its Bill, which I gravely doubt, it will be disappointed. We can only regard the Bill as a piece of electioneering. No houses will be built under the Measure before the General Election. As a piece of political electioneering I congratulate them upon it; they are entitled to do it; but let nobody be under the misapprehension that this Bill, which has been trumpeted forth in the Press with much vigour, is going to be a great solution of the housing problem. It is an attempt on the part of the National Government to get back to the established method laid down in 1919, pursued by successive Governments, and destroyed by this Government in its Bill passed in 1933. We welcome the Minister of Health in sackcloth and ashes, coming back repentant for what he did then, and returning to the fold of those who believe that the housing problem of this country cannot be solved apart from public financial assistance.
6.0 p.m.
After such an extraordinarily eloquent and vigorous speech as that to which we have just listened, it is almost necessary to recall to one's memory that the object of the Bill is to try to cure the overcrowding of people in houses which generally are unfit for them to live in. How far it will do that we shall be able to judge better towards the later stages of the Bill and, as we all admit that it will take some time to get the Bill into working order, so the final result will not be able to be judged for a long time. Overcrowding in tenement houses and basements seems to us such a terrible social evil that anything that professes to attack it ought, as we think, at this stage at any rate, to be supported. I was thinking about the subject at that time when one thinks of so many things one ought not to, during the sermon on Sunday, which was, as it happened, a very excellent account of the wonderful work that is being done by Dr. Barnado's homes, and I could not help wondering how much of the work of looking after children, which pours in upon that organisation and other similar bodies, would be reduced if only overcrowding could be done away with. I am sure it would be reduced very greatly. I wonder how many of us there are who, if we had to live and have our children born and brought up living and eating and sleeping all in one room, could be sure that they would never be neglectful or cruel, and that it might not be better that the children should be taken away.
I share entirely what the Minister said about the marvellous way in which people manage to live in these overcrowded conditions. What I marvel at whenever I get to know a little more about the way in which thousands of people live is their amazing decency and morality and cheerfulness. I have often heard it said that there are people who would convert a palace into a slum, but my experience is that there are tens of thousands more who succeed in making the slums in which they have to live into palaces of tidiness, cleanliness and order, but however marvellously they manage it—it shows that the age of miracles is not past—in their overcrowded houses and tenements, we have a duty to try to give them a better chance, and, therefore, the House has the duty to try to make the Bill into something which will give them a better chance if it can. The first thing that I would remark is, what a remarkable and interesting change in Government policy the Bill represents It is only 14 months ago that the Minister was explaining to us how well private enterprise was doing in providing houses for the working-class population, and how much he hoped from the policy of filtering up from below, and the beneficial effects on the cost of housing that were being produced by the withdrawal of subsidies. Now things are very much changed from that. I do not flatter myself that any action that we took here had any effect on that change—probably not.
We have several times over, as, of course, have hon. Members above the Gangway, pointed out that to meet the need, which is for houses to let at from 8s. to 10s. a week in towns and 3s. to 5s. a week in the country, including rates, the contribution likely to be made by private enterprise was practically negli- gible. On the Moyne Committee we came into close touch with that, and there the representatives of private enterprise admitted the need of housing and said they could supply it. But when one came a little closer into contact with what it was that they could supply, one found that the houses to let in which they were interested began at rents of about 11s. 6d. or 12s. a week, with rates on top of that. From the point of view of the hundreds of thousands of people who want houses you might as well have offered them houses in the moon as houses of that kind. Private enterprise alone, we have been convinced for many years, can hardly keep pace with, far less overtake, the growing demand for more houses by many hundreds of thousands of people, and the production of this Bill shows in a very welcome way that the Government have to a very considerable extent come round to that view, and that, we think, is something to the good.
Now I come to some of the doubts and difficulties. I was glad that the Minister said he had been closely in touch with local authorities and had worked out his proposals in co-operation with them, because everything really depends on that and on what they will do. There has been an enormous succession of housing Bills. I was reckoning them up—I do not know these things as well as the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last—but this is the sixth major Act, counting from 1919, which has been passed, apart from many minor Acts. All when they were introduced have looked like doing the job that we wanted done, but many have left it even bigger than they found it. The question is whether local authorities are not—and I fear they are—rather tired of successions of Housing Acts. They are not very much aching to make fresh surveys and produce fresh schemes and, if they are rather tired and flagging, no one, not even the Minister, can make them do things that they do not want to do. Therefore, though we may here enact, it will rest with the local authorities actually to do the job, and, until we see the way in which they are willing to tackle it, no one can be certain what the Bill will do. The Minister, I agree, is bound, as he explained so well, to rely in a matter of this magnitude mainly on the local authorities. I wish they were rather stronger and more zealous than they are so far as my experience goes. Even if they do their best the machinery of the Bill will operate very slowly and, if they do not, it will not operate at all, and nothing that we put on paper here can make much difference.
Now I come to the question of the flats. We all know the Government's declared policy—on and on and on, up and up and up—but on and up are alternatives and are not complementary. It is a question of on into the country or up into the clouds, and the Government have come down rather heavily on the upward rather than the onward policy. Undoubtedly flats go very much against the grain with an enormous number of people. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) will deal with the subject of London and will be able to tell the House, among other things, what a passionate attachment people have to their little houses. I have been looking at the photographs of flats which have been put up in the Tea Room in the last day or two and, except for a few in London, which are very good, and a few in Sweden, they strike me as rather horrible. But when one looks at them more carefully, one realises that it is largely the long lines of balconies that make them ugly to look at and, as I have seen in Vienna, those lines of balconies look very different when filled with flowers from what they do in the photographs and, after all, balconies are necessary to give the people air and to give the saving in stairs space that balconies mean. However much we may be influenced by the old-fashioned idea, of which there is so much, that the Englishman's home is his castle, I am afraid there can be no doubt at all that in the big towns, where it is necessary for bad housing to be swept away and for people to live within a reasonable distance of their work, there really is no solution except in terms of flats and I am sure, so much having been discovered about flat building in the last 10 years, as the Minister says, we may hope that the flats to be put up will avoid mistakes made both in this country and abroad in the past. Although people very much dislike having their affairs known to their neighbours, as they say is inevitable in flats, yet they also very much like knowing their neighbours' affairs, and I am not sure whether the liking that they have for that is not greater than the dislike on the other side.
But I have a feeling, having looked at the Bill as carefully as I could, that although flats are inevitable, if anything effective is to be done, the Government are unduly weighting the Bill in their favour. In the first place, I wish it offered some prospect of replanning our towns so as to avoid this intensive crowding, whether of flats or of houses, in the centre. I was glad that the Minister spoke about that, because one does not see it in the Bill. On the Moyne Committee, which reported in favour of subsidies both for flats and for houses, the figures used were that it would be necessary to make a total payment of £720 for a flat and £300 for a house. That is a ratio of rather less than two and a-half to one. The Financial Memorandum to the Bill estimates £600 for a flat—£400 from national funds and £200 from rates—and only £150 for a house, although that includes a certain proportion of flats on cheaper sites. That ratio is not two and a-half to one but four to one in favour of the flat, making the subsidy for the house very much smaller—only £150 as against the £300 that we reckoned would be really necessary in the Moyne Committee. I cannot help thinking that for some reason or other the Ministry is rather weighting the scale in favour of these flats, and that is borne out when one notices this rather interesting omission from the Bill, that no subsidy of any kind is provided in re-developed areas for houses apart from flats. I hope it is not contemplated that in these areas the only buildings shall be in piles erected on top of one another, and no more houses at all.
My fear is that under the Bill ground landlords are going to get much more than they ought to get. I have heard cases recently in which landowners who were willing to sell blocks of three or four houses to these new societies which would re-condition them, have withdrawn their offer and are hanging back because they thought that under the Bill they would be able to get better terms. That will not do at all. I do not see why, if a man who is able to sell any house property that be has and build other property elsewhere which would give the tenant alternative accommodation—if he could sell the site for a cinema or a theatre or something of that kind and does not do it—he should be compensated On the full market value, namely, on the value that it would have if it were used for a cinema or a skating rink, or whatever possible purpose it could be put to. That is one of the things on which we shall have a good deal to say when we come to it in Committee. It would be intolerable if this new money which the taxpayer is being asked to provide only went to give owners of building sites a value which is not really fair. How very much better the position would be if we now had it established that whenever owners of property of this kind get a larger amount, not by any exertion of their own but merely owing to the growth of the towns in which they live, some large proportion of it went back to the State in the shape of a tax on increased land values.
In connection with the matter of redevelopment, I think I ought to quote from an article by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who is a political supporter of the Government and is extraordinarily experienced in these housing matters. The article appeared in the "Lancet" a few days ago. He says:
I now come to the matter of the standard of overcrowding laid down in the Bill. It may seem to some hon. Members rather a Committee point. I think that it is very vital and I was very glad that it was dealt with above the Gangway. The Minister admitted that his scale was low. It is below the scales adopted in Manchester and on the Merseyside, and is a scale which Lord Amulree's Committee calls me if I look at it from the point of view I know best—the point of view of the country. How would it work there? There is still a very great need of new houses in the country. The normal country cottage has five rooms and floor space averaging over 110 square feet per room. I have been measuring up a lot of cottages to see, and it is so. In that cottage the Bill would allow two adults or four children under 10 per room. So eight grown-up people and four children under 10—and a baby, which does not count—would be allowed, or six adults and eight children under 10 and the baby. That would still be allowed, and would not be overcrowding under the Bill. In the minority of old cottages of less than 110 square feet of floor space but over 90, the Bill would allow five adults and five children.
People just do not live in that way in the country, and that is all there is to be said about it. They do not use living rooms as bedrooms. It has been their good fortune to have been able to live a little better than thousands of poor fellows who have to live in the towns. But they do not live in that sort of overcrowded condition. In my large parish I can only think of two families to which, possibly, the provisions of this Bill could apply. But if you were to build tomorrow 20 new houses to be let even up to 6s. a week including rates, which is a shilling more than the Minister gives, they would be occupied by people who really ought to move and get a better chance. What happens is that young men and women brought up in the country and wanting to live in the country, and with the possibility of getting jobs in the country, not overcrowded according to the standard of the Bill, because they cannot get houses in the country, drift into the towns and add to the struggle for work in the towns, whereas if there were more country cottages for them they would not leave the countryside at all.
The Minister talked about elasticity—a blessed word. I hope that it means something, but, as far as the Bill is concerned, I cannot see it. As far as I know, if there is to be elasticity it can only be done by some combination. From the point of view of those people who wish for better housing conditions, they must realise, from what the Minister has said here and eleswhere, that it is a case of this Bill or nothing, because the Minister has made it clear that this Bill is the last stage of the Government's policy, and that nothing more is to be thought of.
There is one special case of overcrowding, if I may so call it, which the Minister of Health must remedy, if his Bill is really to succeed, namely, overcrowding in his own Ministry. He needs more rooms and to put into them helpful people who will help local authorities in the job that will lie before them. It is notorious that the Ministry has not been able to help local authorities in housing in the way they should have done. Big corporations like London and Liverpool have experts, the best architects, engineers and surveyors that money can procure, but there are an enormous number of local authorities in the country who have really done very badly in their housing schemes, or very much less well than they would otherwise have done, for want of really expert advice. There has been an enormous amount of waste of money and of space, and very many unnecessarily ugly and inconvenient houses have been built. It is generally the planning and the best use to make of the site that has been defective, which is a thing about which the normal borough surveyor or engineer does not know anything, and has not been trained to know anything about.
It is essential that in this scheme, which is meant to transform, as the Minister has said, the outward aspect of many of our towns, there should be access to men of ripe experience or expert knowledge, either in the Ministry or on the proposed Central Housing Advisory Committee, so that things of that kind may be done better in the future than in the past. As far as we can judge at present the scheme of the Ministry shows a defect common in many Bills, namely, a lack of sufficient co-ordination with the work of other Departments. The danger is lest it should be regarded too much as a Departmental Bill and not enough as a national Bill. As Sir Basil Blackett said two days ago, there is no evidence of relating the housing and the transport problems together. From my point of view, what I mind much more, there is no sign, as far as we hear at present, of co-operation between housing policy and the policy with regard to access to land and the holding of allotments.
Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that he would incorporate all these matters in a single Bill?
No, but I think the right hon. Gentleman might have referred to the matter and made it clear. I hope that it will become clear as we go along, but there is no sign of it yet. I consider that, quite apart from building efforts and the spreading out of houses, some attempt should be made to synchronise these matters. Some of us who are interested in the allotment question have been for long urging the Government to help local authorities to turn allotment estates from insecure leasehold into secure freehold. We have had a definite refusal from the Ministry of Agriculture. We all know what difference it makes to a man to have access to a bit of land, however small. But this Housing Bill, if the right steps are not taken, will make things much worse instead of better, for it will mean pushing people outwards still further. The more you make people live in flats, which will inevitably mean taking away tiny gardens even in overcrowded areas, you ought to try to provide access to allotments or to tiny spaces for cultivation. I am glad, if I am right in gathering the fact from the Minister, that these matters will be brought into consideration. My point is that so far as we have gone they have not been mentioned.
I come to my last point. Wherever one looks, there is need still for a broader view. The "Times" has, for instance, in two rather interesting leading articles lately on the Bill, called attention to the over-riding importance of finance in connection with housing, and said: was looking the other day at the profits of some brick companies, which my hon. Friend kindly gave me, and I found that one of them paid a dividend of 50 per cent. in 1931, another 50 per cent. in 1932, and another 50 per cent., with a capital bonus of 150 per cent., in 1933. Is any definite concrete action to be taken in connection with this Bill to prevent that sort of thing getting worse? It is bad enough in present circumstances in all conscience. I make this suggestion, and no doubt it will be considered and we shall hear what can be said about it later on: Could not the powers and duties of the Central Housing Advisory Committee be definitely extended to cover points of that kind? Again to quote Lord Balfour of Burleigh:
I come back to where I started. The Bill does aim at tackling a very great social evil, and I am sure that the Minister is intensely sincere in the efforts he is making to make the Bill work and to get a healthy atmosphere for it here and outside. When I think of the type of housing which this Bill may sweep away, I remember a passage in a very excellent book written by the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) in which he describes talks he has had in his constituency and elsewhere with all sorts and conditions of people. One night we had been very late here and he went out and got talking to some young men at a coffee stall on the Embankment, and found that some of them were accustomed to spending the nights out always on the benches of the Embankment or at coffee stalls, because, although they had homes to go to, probably within a mile of this House, they did not dare to go home to sleep because of the bugs. That is a horrible thing, and I am certain that it is true. If we can do anything effective to stop that, I am sure that we shall do it, and in order that we can we must give the Bill a Second Reading.
I should like to clear up a misconception. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that in a re-development area the subsidy would be available for flats only. That is not so in the Bill. It will be available for re-housing generally.
I thank my right hon. Friend for that correction.
6.31 p.m.
I should like to say a few words about the Bill, and I will endeavour to make them few, because when one has the advantage of speaking in this part of the debate, when a large number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are wishing to take part, it is only right that one should endeavour to curtail one's remarks. I am interested not only as an owner of house property but also as a trustee of three separate charities, all of whom possess property. I have for a long time made a study of this question, and I gave evidence before the Moyne and other committees.
The difficulty and intricacy of this question of providing houses of a decent standard of accommodation, with proper air space, at a rent which the lower-paid workers can reasonably be asked to pay, has not been sufficiently realised by the public in general. Although the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) made an attack upon the Government, I suggest that this is not a party question. I go further and suggest that, owing to the fact that public opinion is insufficiently instructed, on the whole it has scarcely been fair to owners of property, to local authorities and to successive Ministers of Health when, as in the case of my right hon. Friend and many of his predecessors, they have made great and meritorious efforts and progress towards a final solution of a very stubborn problem.
I will proceed to say briefly what those difficulties are. As I see it, this problem of housing has some resemblance to that of unemployment. There is a close Parliamentary resemblance, because in every Parliament in which I have sat since the War both the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health, to whatever parties they have belonged, have always said that they were going to deal with these respective problems within the lifetime of that Parliament, but, unfortunately, none of them has succeeded in doing so. The housing problem is also like the problem of unemployment—if I may permit myself another analogy—in so far as un-instructed enthusiasm believes implicitly in the simplicity of the problem, when it is the very reverse. We often hear people saying: "Deal with unemployment. It is perfectly simple. All you have to do is to find men work." In regard to housing, people say: "All you have to do is to pull down every workingman's house which is more than 40 years old. Rebuild those houses and millions more and you will solve the housing problem and the problem of unemployment as well."
Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that. Such matters as owners' and even tenants' rights, the provision of alternative accommodation while demolition is going on, the effect on public and private finance, which are most important considerations in these times, and the general economics of the situation are a closed book to many people who write and speak on the subject of housing. That is especially true of some prominent clerical commentators on the situation. If they have such disregard of pound, shillings and pence in the management of their dioceses and parishes as they show with regard to the question of housing it is no wonder that the churches have to make such constant appeals for funds.
There is one point which I have never heard made in the course of Debates in this House, at any rate I think I am almost the first to make it, and it is that so far from it being assumed, as it is constantly assumed, that this is a British problem, it is a problem which exists all over the world. There is no country in the world which is not faced with the housing difficulty. I should say that the standard of working-class accommodation in France is definitely lower than the standard here. In the United States of America they have the most terrible slums in the great towns. President Roosevelt has been the first prominent American statesman to give attention to the subject, and he is now suggesting enormous building and re-housing programmes in the United States. When we come to Germany and some of the Central European States, which are quoted as examples, sometimes to the disparagement of British property owners and British municipalities, and we are told of the wonderful things done there in the matter of re-housing, we cannot forget that in countries like Germany they have huge blocks of ancient, sunless, airless flats where children are worse off than they are in the smaller houses and cottages in this country.
I was recently in Italy—I will not mention the town—and, although I saw some of the wonderful things that have been done under the Fascist regime in the making of roads and aqueducts, I saw housing conditions which cannot be found anywhere in this country, not even in the worst parts of Glasgow or London. I think that in this matter, as in so many other matters, we have shown ourselves rather foolishly overmodest about the inroads already made in the destruction of slums. It is due to the ingrained habit of self-depreciation of the British people. It is a good thing if it stirs up the national conscience, which needs to be stirred, but we have been too prone to suggest that Great Britain alone possesses slums or has a working-class housing problem. The reverse is true, and this Bill, the previous Bill brought in by my right hon. Friend, and other Bills—I say this quite gladly—brought in by right hon. Members opposite, are all helping in the solution of the problem. I hope that the present Measure will accelerate the solution. Nevertheless, the House ought to realise this very important fact, that the actual attainment of the end which all reasonable and humane men and women desire to see reached has not been reached. There is not a sufficiency of houses at a rent which is economic and within the means of the tenant to pay. Alternatively, it has not yet been possible on any large scale to build houses at a cost which working-class owner-occupiers can afford to buy. A large number of houses for sale have been built, but I think that very few of them have been purchased by working-class owner-occupiers, except in some cases through the agency of building societies.
I suggest that there are two dangers which the supporters of the Government and Members of the Liberal party will agree ought to be avoided. Hon. Members opposite, with the political views which they hold, will not agree with me on this point. Those dangers are: (1), that all but a small minority of wage- earners should be housed by subsidised rents because the true economic rent is too high to pay; (2), that all wage-earners earning less than, say, 45s. a week in towns should be housed by the State or the local authorities. I am sure that my right hon. Friend and any Minister of any Conservative or National Government will agree with me that these are really grave dangers. I should like to examine them more closely. The first brings us somewhat nearer—making all allowances for the changed circumstances—to the Speenhamland experiment under the Poor Law. I would ask hon. Members to think of the political and financial consequences of the second danger; every lower-paid wage-earner, divorced alike from the responsibility and advantages of house ownership living in a house owned by the State or the local authorities; local authorities subject to the temptation of open or hidden corruption or, at best, to maladministration in the allotment of houses; fierce competition between contending parties or individuals in vote buying by offers of lower rents at the expense of the ratepayers and taxpayers. It would be a fatal blow at one of the strongest beams in our policy, that of the ownership of small houses by the occupiers through membership of building societies or in other ways. It is quite certain that if the State, to use a sporting phrase, really stretches itself in this way, the time will not be far distant when that danger will actually arise, that is to say, when all but a small minority of wage-earners in this country will be housed by the State or by the local authorities.
I do not note any great assent to my view, but times must have changed greatly during the 30 years that I have been in Parliament if the Tory party can look upon any such state of affairs with anything but loathing and horror. Hon. Members opposite, holding the views that they do, must, of course, work for that end, because they do not want to see the ownership of houses by private individuals. Quite honourably and sincerely, that is the policy for which they are working, but the rest of us should be extremely careful lest we proceed too far upon those lines. I suggest that the right line of approach in a Bill of this kind which the Government and the great majority of the House support is to endeavour to encourage the building and ownership of houses in the following order of precedence: (1) by public utility or building societies, as has been so strongly urged in the "Times" newspaper—the "Times" and certain other newspapers have strongly urged that the Government should do everything they can to encourage the public utility societies and the building societies—(2) by private individuals and, lastly, by the local authorities. I have not time to develop this argument, but the whole trend of legislation since the War has been to make the ownership of houses by private individuals harder and ownership by local authorities easier. If after 17 years it could be said that the problem is nearly solved and that there is a sufficiency of houses at economic rents which the tenants can afford to pay or which they can buy through the agency of the building societies, I might be inclined to alter my views, but things being as they are we must be very careful how we proceed.
Ministers of Health in general have shown a touching belief and faith that the local authorities in areas where the majority has Left views in politics can be trusted to deal fairly with private enterprise in housing or house ownership, even though the members of that party up to 100 per cent. are pledged by their election pledges to destroy private ownership. They have had a touching faith in areas of a very different kind where the whole tendency of the local authority is opposed to building houses because the political complexion of the Members is opposed to public enterprise in housing, and they shut their eyes to the suggestion that any corruption can or does creep into the present system despite the immense patronage which is frequently placed in the hands of some quite small local authorities. They have suggested that tenders for houses will be fairly considered and contracts allotted, and that as regards the allocation of the houses themselves there will be no favouritism of political supporters or friends and relatives. Everybody knows that in some cases, not many, those conditions have not been fulfilled. I can quote cases of houses built by local authorities at scandalously high rents, because they chose to employ direct, labour rather than build them by contract. I know of an authority owning 200 houses, an extraordinarily undue proportion of which are occupied by political supporters of the party in power, and in one case actually occupied by councillors and their relatives.
Can the right hon. Member give the name? Is it a Tory council?
I said in some cases. And there are cases all over the country of this kind. Hon. Members opposite must not be so thin skinned. They must not think that every reference to corruption refers to them. It does not. It is a matter of notoriety that corruption has crept into the question of housing, and, therefore, I am delighted that the Minister of Health proposes to appoint housing associations, and I am only sorry that he has not made it obligatory instead of permissive. I was rather surprised at the outburst of indignation with which his remarks on this question were greeted by hon. Members opposite. I listened to the right hon. Member opposite, but I could find no argument whatever against the appointment of this body. It will be a responsible body with power delegated to it by the local authority to carry out their duties in the matter of housing. I think it is most admirable that you should have a body which will be composed of people with expert knowledge from among the members of the local authority rather than that the whole local authority should have to carry out these duties. I cannot understand the reason for the objection of hon. Members opposite. It is very mysterious to me.
Provided the main body is incompetent to do the job.
Is it anything derogatory to a local authority to suggest that an expert body would be better able to perform the task than the whole body itself?
But suppose the main body is an expert body and there is no question of corruption. Is that an occasion to hand the work over? Take the case of Liverpool. In a case like Liverpool I think it would be absurd to hand it over to anybody.
The hon. Member will excuse me from entering into a long detailed argument, and I will leave the matter by saying that I do not under- stand the objection taken by hon. Members opposite against a most valuable provision in the Bill.
Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that the commission to be appointed by the local authority will be purer and more incorruptible than the council which has to appoint it? I am as amazed as the right hon. Gentleman; but for a very different reason.
I feel flattered that the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Opposition has intervened during my speech, but at the same time I should not like to enter into a discussion with him on that point. I think there are reasons, which I cannot elaborate now, which would make them a more competent and efficient body to carry out these duties than the local authority as a whole, and I am glad that the Minister of Health has put this provision in the Bill. I am also glad that he proposes to give greater opportunities to public utility societies. I cannot understand the attack on what is known as the Octavia Hill system. In Part V of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do something which but for one qualification would be a most valuable provision. He proposes to confer a most valuable new right on the owner, a provision which will be beneficial alike to the tenant and to the public. He is going to give the owner the right to re-develop his own property. It is an astonishing fact that he does not possess this right at the moment. I wonder whether hon. Members realise the extent to which an unfortunate owner is handicapped at the present time. The owner has a certain property which is full of rent-restricted houses. He is anxious to re-develop the property; he does not like the type of houses, they are old and bad, and he wants to provide a better type of house. He is unable to do this under the present law unless he can provide alternative accommodation, and that is impossible because there are no vacant spaces.
Local authorities have much greater rights in this respect. They can take over an area for slum clearance purposes and need not house the dispossessed tenants on the same site or in the vicinity, or at the same rent, whereas the owner of property is handicapped severely by this most extraordinary situation. I have heard attacks again and again on owners which have amazed me. It has been said, "why do they not pull their houses down." The answer, of course, is that the Rent Restrictions Acts will not allow them to do so. Under this Bill, the Government propose to do what Members in all parties will agree is the right thing to do, that is to continue to penalise the bad owner and give to the good owner the right, which he has not had hitherto, of improving and re-developing his property. I am grateful to the Minister for this provision, although I confess that I should like to see an appeal to some independent authority. Under Clause 52, that is the re-development Clause, there is no appeal at all, and there may be a local authority strongly opposed to private ownership who might turn down a re-development scheme. I think some tribunal should be appointed, or some existing tribunal used, in order to give an owner the opportunity, if his scheme is turned down, of appealing. Clauses 58 to 62 also relax stringent conditions which at present exist, and which are not applied in some cases.
I listened to the right hon. Member for Camborne (Sir F. Acland) who is an authority on housing, having given a life study to the subject. I agree with him that the question of the provision of flats in central areas requires very careful discrimination indeed. It is somewhat difficult to put the argument shortly, but, in the first place, there is unquestionably an objection by many English working-men and their wives to live in a huge block of flats, partly for reasons arising during the time of the old bad tenant Acts and partly for more delicate reasons. There are working-class families who feel that their children will be contaminated by having to live in an immense building, with long staircases, where they may come into contact with undesirable people, and there are undoubtedly cases where people living in a small slummy cottage cling to that cottage because it has a back garden; it is their own possession, their own home, and they have strongest objection to being moved into a huge block of flats. Moreover, a great many of the flats built in London by local authorities—there are some I think in Westminster—contain no proper provision for giving air and sunshine to the younger members of the family, to the babies. In a small cottage the mother can put the child out into the yard and leave it there, but, if she is on the third or fourth or fifth storey of a block of flats, it is difficult to do that unless there is a proper barricade. In this connection, I would plead for reconsideration for this sort of case.
Under the Bill it will be possible in a working-class area which is held to be overcrowded to pull down, in order to make room for re-development, a cottage which is not in itself overcrowded and is not insanitary. I ask the House to realise the position of an elderly couple who may be the owner-occupiers of a small cottage of three or four rooms, in which they have lived all their lives. They do not want to be moved at the end of their lives into a great block of flats, where they may have to pay a higher rent, and where they do not know anybody. Under the existing law if you live in a slum area the house has to be pulled down. Under the present proposals you are dealing with areas which are not slum areas but which are overcrowded, and I hope that due consideration will be given to the position of these people. There are more owner-occupiers in this country than is realised, and there is no doubt that under the existing law they have been very harshly dealt with. I know of a case in a town in the South of England of a fisherman and his wife who have lived in a little cottage for 40 years and brought up their family. How can you say that their health has suffered or that the house is insanitary and must be pulled down? How can you explain that to these people? They must feel that the law is most unjust and unfair.
It is necessary to consider the situation very carefully. There is a need to deal with overcrowding—nobody denies that—in towns like London, and other large places. I know of cases of people living in a house consisting of four rooms and a scullery at a rent of 15s. 6d. per week. The tenant of the house—it is not rent restricted—lets off two of the rooms to a family at a rent of 10s. per week. He is thus living in his house at a rent of 5s. 6d. a week. People ask "Why do these people live in these two rooms, and pay 10s. a week?" The answer is that no local authority has yet succeeded in producing flats for these people at a lower rent than 12s. and 13s. per week, and the difference between 10s. and 12s. is so great that a man is compelled to live with his family in these two rooms because he cannot afford to live in a flat with three or four rooms. We have really to go into these economics of the poor. Until we have done that, we cannot deal with the question of housing. I approach this question, not from a party point of view, but from the point of view of the general welfare of the wage earners, and I think that the greatest benefit which can be conferred on the country is that this House should provide a sufficiency of decent houses at a rent which the poorest body of workers in the country can afford.
7.0 p.m.
I am sure that the House will agree that the Noble Lord has made a very interesting speech, although we on this side of course do not agree with what he has said. He has been extremely frank in his views and has definitely told the House that he thinks it is wrong in principle for local authorities to go out of their way to provide houses, that it would be far better left to private enterprise, and consequently he is giving this Bill a lukewarm reception. He says that as long as the Government do not stretch themselves too far in the provision of houses it is all right, and as this Bill certainly does not go far in securing the building of working-class houses, the Noble Lord gives it lukewarm support. There is no doubt that the Bill, in the early stages at any rate, received a certain amount of public support, but I am convinced that this support was due very largely to the fact that it was not realised how its provisions will handicap in so many important respects a progressive local authority in the carrying out of its housing duties. When the Minister says that the criticism from the London County Council is only natural because the London County Council has a different political complexion from the Minister, I assure him that he is wrong in thinking that that opposition is based on politics and that it is insignificant or unimportant. The criticism put forward by that body is based on a close study of the Bill which has convinced them that as far as the provision of new houses is concerned, which is really the crux of the overcrowding problem, it is very doubtful whether the Measure will not be more of a hindrance than a help.
Overcrowding is simply a problem of the shortage of houses. There would be no overcrowding if there were ample accommodation for the overcrowded families, and existing overcrowding is to some definite extent the result of the previous policy of the Minister of Health. By cutting off the Wheatley subsidy, by refusing to implement the Housing (Rural Authorities) Act of 1931, the Minister definitely stopped the building of houses for working people. It is no use saying that the number of houses built by private enterprise has increased. That, of course, is a fact, but the number of those houses that are occupied by working people, anyhow as far as the London area is concerned, is insignificant. I am sure that it is the same in other important cities. The important figures are those of the houses built by local authorities, and it has been the direct result of deliberate Government policy that the number of local authority houses has declined. The number under construction in September, 1931, by local authorities had risen to 44,000. That number has fallen steadily during the last few years until in April last year it was 19,000. The number of houses built by local authorities in the six months ending September, 1931, was 33,324. The number built by local authorities in the half-year ending September, 1934, was only 21,700. That fall is the direct result of the Government policy in regard to housing subsidies, and to that extent the Government must accept responsibility for the lack of houses and the consequent overcrowding that exists to-day.
But, leaving aside the question of culpability for overcrowding, how does this Bill propose to deal with the matter? Broadly speaking, the object is to define a maximum standard of accommodation, to make it illegal after a certain time for any owner to allow that standard to be exceeded, and to provide a subsidy with which to encourage and enable local authorities to relieve overcrowding. As regards the standard, much might be said, but really it is almost unnecessary, because once houses are there, there will be no need to inflict penalties on any landlord for allowing overcrowding in his premises, for overcrowding will disappear the moment there are sufficient working-class houses available at rents which people can pay. As regards the amount of subsidy which is given, it is in the opinion of the County Council inadequate. It is far less than the 1931 subsidy, and will put a heavy burden on local authorities, particularly in regard to building on land valued at less than £1,500 an acre. Outside London the subsidy which is proposed and which may or may not be given at the discretion of the Minister is very much lower than will meet the charges of the council.
It is when we come to the provisions of the Bill which handicap and impede the local authority that we feel very strongly indeed. Let me give one or two reasons why this Bill will handicap us in our work. New compensation Clauses have been inserted in the Bill. I will not argue their merits, whether they are just or unjust. We feel that the present basis of compensation is fair, and that no alteration is necessary. All I am dealing with at the moment is the effect on housing of that alteration, and, in view of the hold-up in settlements of claims between the owners of land in the various areas which the council is clearing of slums, and in view also of Clause 60, Sub-section (1), which enables an owner to retain the ownership of his land in a clearance area, it is the opinion, not of a political party, but of the officers of a council whose duty it is to deal with the re-housing of people in London, that these changes will hold up our slum clearance work, which has the enthusiastic support of all classes in London, by fully six months.
The council is embarking on a very big policy of building new houses and slum clearance. The number of areas in which the county council has made representations in the first 10 months of its existence is 38, compared with 15 in the previous year. That is in respect of 54 acres, compared with 29 acres in the previous 10 months of the year before. They cover 14,197 people, compared with 6,300 people involved in the representations made in 10 months in the year before. My object is not to make political capital out of that, but merely to convince the House that we are as eager as possible to get on with this business of providing houses and clearing slums, and any measure that might have helped in this respect would have been welcomed, from whatever party it came. But it is obviously a very serious blow to the abolition of slums in London to have presented to us a Bill which will retard our work by six months in respect of all the clearance areas with which we are dealing.
This is a very serious point. Does the hon. Member suggest that Clause 60 will retard the work for six months?
I am suggesting that the two provisions together will retard the council. That is, the altered basis of compensation, which will make it impossible to settle with any landowner until this Bill is through the House, together with Clause 60, which gives landowners an opportunity for delay because they are able to retain land. That, in the view of our expert officers, will delay our work by six months. Another important consideration in this question of compensation is that it will increase the cost of acquisition very considerably. It would seem that these new Clauses mean that in the case of all the sites which the council are going to acquire the cost of acquisition will be in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent. more than before. That is a very serious matter. The Government, as a result of pressure put on them at a conference of their party, decided to alter the basis of compensation. One might have thought that that compensation would come out of funds over which they had control and for which they were responsible, but not at all; every penny will have to come out of local authority funds, and the Government will not pay a penny of it. Their generosity is vicarious; they make a gift, and allow other people to provide the money.
I am sorry the Minister is not here. He made a reference in his speech to the conversations which took place between himself and local authorities before this Bill was introduced. The London County Council took part in those conversations. There were numerous discussions, and they were very cordial, very helpful, and the council were glad that they took place. But the all important financial factor, the increased compensation to be paid to landlords, was never mentioned right throughout the course of the discussions until they were quite over, and, although the council welcomed the opportunity of discussing the matter with the Minister, they feel very keenly that they have been treated unfairly in this matter in that this all important point was never mentioned from beginning to end.
There was another point which was not mentioned to the council and which has been put in the Bill. It has nothing to do with overcrowding, and the Minister of Health did not mention it in his speech. But as it is in the Bill and presumably will be the law it calls for comment. It is proposed under this Bill that in future local authorities should not be allowed to make grants to people who want to buy houses unless the value of the house is under £800. This is a matter which affects London only, I understand, because outside London applications of this nature do not come in. Under the existing Regulations applications can be made in respect of houses up to the value of £1,500. This ability to grant loans for the purchase of houses was much used, and was a valuable social service. Now, because presumably the building societies object, for they are the only people who will benefit by this deprivation of a useful social service, the figure is limited. One-third of the loans which are granted by the county council for the purchase of houses are between the figures of £800 and £1,500. It is inconceivable why this alteration is made, why this social service is being taken away from the council; and it is strange that the Minister made no reference whatever to it. Incidentally I would draw a contrast between the attitude on this question of the present county council and that of the Government. It should be noted that the people who are to suffer here are not working-class people, but middle-class people. Their interests are being attacked. Whereas the county council went out of its way to bring to the notice of people the facility that it provided and they have had a very considerable response, the Government take away that facility for the benefit of the vested interests of the building societies.
There are several other matters in the Bill which, as it is drafted at the moment, will impede the work of the county council. They are matters which can possibly be altered in Committee, but as the Bill stands they will impede the work of any active housing authority. I do not want to take up too much time, and I will merely indicate some points which it will be possible to elaborate on another occasion. The definition of the alternative accommodation to be offered to overchrowded people will make it very difficult to provide that alternative accommodation. Where families are living in rent controlled houses and those families are moved outside, it will be almost impossible to move them to other rent controlled houses if the thing is done on a large scale. I hope that that provision will be altered in Committee. The conditions for re-development areas are far too stringent to be practical. As they stand it seem3 quite impossible for the Council to take in hand any redevelopment area at all. A new Central Housing Advisory Committee is suggested. We have had a certain experience of advisory committees, and we fear that if this Advisory Committee is set up as proposed it will cause further delay in our housing activities. It will very likely want to consider plans. Matters sent to the Minister which might be quickly disposed of will be sent to the Committee for consideration and then sent back again, as happens with other advisory committees. There is considerable danger that the work of the Council will be handicapped in that respect.
We also object to the proposal for the Housing Management Commissions. I know that this proposal is optional and that no local authority need adopt it. The noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said he could not understand the objection to it. I will give a reason briefly. These Management Commissions will, it is suggested, have control of the estates and housing of the local authorities. They will be able to alter the rents of the people living in the houses and flats of the local authorities. They will put up those rents or put them down and have complete control. It is surely an intolerable state of affairs that people who are not responsible to the ratepayers at all should, by altering the rent of the tenants, be able directly to affect the rates of the local authority concerned. I am surprised that anyone who believes in representative democratic government can support such a proposal. I cannot see why a local authority which is capable of carrying out clearance schemes and build- ing houses should not be able to look after the houses properly. I believe, on the contrary, that the care of the houses has been done admirably by local authorities of every complexion throughout the country. To take housing away from the local authorities and to put the management into the hands of irresponsible people, in the sense that they are not responsible to the ratepayers, is a reactionary proposal.
As I said before, no one regrets more than I do the inadequacy of the Bill. My own constituency is as badly overcrowded as any. The slums are perfectly appalling and as bad as in any part of the country. From the moment that I entered public life I have taken a great interest in the question of improving the housing conditions of London. I believe that, next to poverty, overcrowding is the root social evil of the time, because without that first essential, a decent home, no one can live a happy and contented life. An appalling proportion of the people to-day have not got homes at all in the real sense of the word. They have shelters where they can get inadequate sleeping accommodation. A great deal of the resource and energy put into education and into medical services is wasted as long as children and adults who are supposed to benefit by those services, live in houses which are damp, infested with vermin and altogether unhealthy, and where neither adults nor children have privacy or space or opportunity to get decent rest and recreation.
Bad housing is the root social evil of the time. Yet it is the social evil which is the easiest to remedy. We have the unemployed people in the building trade far too numerous. We have the capital at the bank ready to be used; and the raw materials are there. We have local authorities throughout the country most of them eager for an opportunity to remedy the situation. But it is perfectly plain that we have at the moment a Government that is not anxious to give the lead which is necessary. In introducing their new Housing Bill what the Government give with one hand they more than take back with the other; they insert Clauses and provisions which benefit vested interests and are going to handicap every local authority in the provision of houses.
No one would welcome a good Housing Bill more than I and my colleagues on the County Council. I am sure the Minister will agree that we are doing great things in London in clearing slums and building new houses. We want every opportunity and facility for increasing our work, and we would welcome any big and generous Measure that is introduced. But this Bill certainly is not going to help us. The tragedy is that the sufferers will not be those who are responsible for the Bill. They may suffer indirectly, but the main sufferers will be those fellow citizens of ours who far too long have suffered physically and mentally from living in overcrowded conditions, whose hopes were raised by the brave words spoken by Government representatives before the Bill was produced, and whose hopes have now been dashed to the ground by this utterly inadequate Measure.
7.22 p.m.
I suppose that everyone who speaks on this subject is inclined to speak of the special interests with which he is connected. My problem in that part of London which I represent is akin to that which the hon. Member has just mentioned. I agree entirely with what he has said regarding the abomination of housing conditions in the centre of London. Nothing that anyone can say regarding those conditions can be too strong. Even the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) would be put to shame by them, and his language could not be too strong if he knew of many of these housing conditions. I do not feel at all inclined to follow the criticisms regarding what has happened to the Measures of past Ministers and the reasons why the present Government brought the subsidies to an end. It seemed to me that one factor that the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) overlooked was that conditions have changed. As I look back over my own interests in these matters I appear to have been a supporter of so many of these schemes that I could not by any means fall in with the right hon. Gentleman in suggesting that necessarily they have been failures.
No one has a good word to say to-day for the scheme of the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison), but I remember the deep indignation with which I heard of his dismissal by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), a rather peculiar event when one studies the party politics of to-day—the right hon. Gentleman's dismissal from the position of Minister of Health because of what he was doing with regard to housing. It may have been that the right hon. Gentleman's scheme was an extravagant scheme, but to-day I think I could stand up and defend what the right hon. Gentleman did for housing, based on the conditions of the time. The same thing applies to what is known, as the Chamberlain Act, the Wheatley Act and the Act of the right hon. Member for Wakefield. On the other hand it seems to me that the termination of the subsidies has not necessarily been what some hon. Members have made it out to be. One factor is overlooked. It is said that private enterprise does not build houses to let, but only houses for sale. One factor that concerns us in the centre of London is where people are going when they move. I do not think you can draw a distinct line and say that because a large number of houses are being built for the better-off classes, that necessarily is not going to be an advantage to the class of people who are looking for houses to let, for they will take the accommodation which has been vacated.
In Central London it would not have mattered to us whether the subsidies had gone on much longer or not. In Fins-bury there is no place where anyone can build houses. The Wheatley subsidy and the Chamberlain subsidy have undoubtedly been of use to the borough councils. Of Finsbury I can speak in a non-political sense, because both of the two councils, one of them Labour and the other on the opposite political side, have been exceedingly active in building houses and flats. When I look at Fins-bury the one thing I want to see done is the removal of a great block of buildings, some of them houses of the type that has been referred to by the Minister, houses that were the homes of well-to-do people in days gone by. They were built so well that to-day they are absolutely sound houses. Yet these houses are overcrowded with people who are living under appalling conditions. I always hoped that at some time some local body would buy up a large area in Finsbury and re-condition the whole of that area. To many of these houses there is attached ground which used to be used as gardens. I do not know whether it is right for me to say so but I think that the figures of overcrowding in Finsbury at one time were the worst in London if not in the whole country, and the problem was where to get land. In the case of these old houses if the whole of the property could be dealt with and this ground were utilised, there would be a far greater chance of getting the people decently housed, and there would be land available for playgrounds and so forth.
From that standpoint this Measure is one that may help us in central London. The part of the Bill dealing with re-conditioning is one which I regard with some measure of hope. Having said so, I would also say that I thoroughly agree with; certain things which have been said by the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. R. Strauss). I have read the report of the London County Council. It may be that the hon. Member's committee are going to make some further recommendations but certainly the recommendations which have been passed by the council so far do not appear to go as far as the hon. Member himself has gone. It seems to me that they have more truly envisaged the possibilities of this Measure. At the same time, I agree with the council and with the hon. Member, in hoping that the Minister will carefully reconsider Clause 12 of the Bill. That is the crucial Clause as regards the re-conditioning which I am so anxious to see in the borough which I represent.
When we look at the Clause we find that there are so many stringent conditions that this work will be made exceedingly difficult even for the London County Council which will, I suppose, be the body to undertake this duty. The Clause provides that houses must be overcrowded or unfit for human habitation. The misfortune is that in the case of the houses to which I refer, when you clear the people out of them and study the structure you may find that they can be made fit for human habitation. If the Minister is going to adhere strictly to this Clause and if all these matters have to be proved before the work can go forward there is a danger that the very thing which the Minister is anxious to do may become impossible.
Then we come to the question of the standard of accommodation. I may be wrong in my interpretation but surely the chief thing intended here is that if you are going to deal with overcrowding you have first to say what is an overcrowded house, and it is no use putting the standard too high. I am sure the hon. Member for Lambeth will agree that there are crowds of people living under overcrowded conditions in that borough. I wonder how long it would be before this Clause could be made effective in places like Lambeth or Finsbury. It is necessary to offer the people alternative accommodation. In Finsbury we have had a great row with the Ministry over the simple question of what is meant by accommodation on the spot, and the Finsbury Council went so far as to take legal action against the Minister on this very question. The London County Council took up the line of saying that if houses were provided in Islington that would be alternative accommodation for people from Finsbury but there was not a single man in the public life of Finsbury who did not take the view that that was not alternative accommodation because the people in Finsbury wanted to live near their work, and that it was no use offering them houses in Islington. The matter was in dispute for some time and we lost our case and at the moment the case of the London County Council holds good. That is an illustration of the difficulties arising out of this question of alternative accommodation. But it seems to me that there is no use in taking too high a standard in considering what is to constitute overcrowding. We want to have a beginning made with tackling the problem. In the same way it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) was hardly correct in his references to that matter but I need not follow out that point now.
As regards the question of block dwellings, I heard what the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) had to say about that. I have been connected with Finsbury for 40 years, and I believe there is no part of London which has so many block dwellings. I agree with the Noble Lord that there are some people who because of old associations would not leave houses which could be described as slum houses. I have known families in which the sons and daughters having got on in life begged the old people to leave the cottage in which they lived and go to another part of London but nothing would induce the old people to do so. At the same time I should like to tell the Noble Lord that in my experience I have not found among the great mass of the people living in these rather appalling houses any desire to stay there if they have a chance of getting into the new municipal dwellings. In Finsbury, there is a long list of people waiting to get into those dwellings.
I may not have made myself clear but what I meant was that these people would infinitely prefer to have houses instead of flats, but as they cannot get houses they go into the flats.
Possibly but I am referring to the class of persons who come from houses where there have been four or five families together. Persons of that class may have been living in two rooms with insufficient sanitary accommodation and so forth, and they infinitely prefer the flats. I do not believe that there is that dislike to the block dwellings which is referred to sometimes especially by those who are not directly associated with the problem. In central London with the amount of land available it would be obviously impossible to provide the necessary accommodation for the people unless by means of flats. As regards the question of small advances it seems to me to be rather a mistake on the part of the Government to insist upon this policy. The Noble Lord used an argument in favour of people buying their own houses. The question is how much the advance ought to be and it seems to me that the action of the Government in this matter is going directly contrary to what the Noble Lord had been urging. He has been urging that we should try to get these people to buy houses but the action of the Government seems to make it more difficult for them to do so. That however is a Committee point upon which I need not dwell further at the present time.
Then as regards public utility companies, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong but I understood that it is not necessarily the intention that a borough council or a county council should hand over the whole of its housing estate to one of these companies. I understand that under the Government scheme there will be no objection to a public utility company or even an organisation such as the St. Pancras Housing Association taking part. I think that is the kind of organisation which the Minister had in mind when he was referring to this part of the Bill. Instead of saying that all the houses must be owned by the local bodies I understand that there may be if so desired, a public utility organisation, collecting money and developing property on the lines associated with the name of Octavia Hill or such organisations as the St. Pancras Housing Association. But I can understand the opposition which would be raised to the handing over of the whole of a housing estate say from the London County Council to a body of that kind. Personally it would seem to me that such a course would be a mistake but I cannot see that it would be a mistake to have far more of these organisations. I believe they would bring new initiative and new ideas into the work of housing.
The great danger of leaving everything in the hands of the municipality is that it tends to limit ideas of development. There is one architect and one set of officials and they follow the same lines. In Finsbury we have two authorities, the London County Council and the Finsbury Borough Council. For years in London it seemed to be considered that in connection with these great block dwellings you could only have playgrounds of asphalt such as those with which we are familiar. Then somebody connected with the Finsbury Council conceived the idea of having gardens in connection with the block dwellings, and I have never seen gardens in connection with block dwellings comparable with those attached to the new blocks built by the Finsbury Borough Council. If you go to one set of people with all your problems, and have only one set of officials advising on these matters you are limited as to new ideas and outside bodies may bring in a certain amount of initiative. Personally, I welcome that part of the Bill which enables these bodies to work in various localities side by side with the local authorities.
I support what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall about the cost of materials but I am far from saying that the advisory committee is a mistake. I believe the mistake is that there has not been a committee to help the Minister, a committee armed with considerable powers to deal with some of these matters. I do not see how the Minister can ever get this movement going satisfactorily without help of that kind. He may have to face the problem of a rise in building costs, and other questions of that kind and he will require some able advisers so that he can take action to prevent abuses. Otherwise it may be found that just as the scheme seems about to proceed satisfactorily, it will be held up on account of vested interests of various kinds.
The weakness of the Bill seems to be the want of driving power to get all these things through. I should have thought the Minister himself, with all his other duties, could not possibly give the necessary time, and that the Department has not got the best men to give the driving power that is needed. I should like to have seen, under the Minister, small committees appointed with driving power to see what is being done. I very warmly welcome this Measure, because I feel that, although it has certain weaknesses, it is the one great hope of the district which I represent in helping to do away with some of the drab features to be found there and in helping to tackle this problem, which so far has not been touched by any other Ministry.
7.47 p.m.
I want to put before this House the position of the smaller provincial towns in reference to this Bill. Many of the speakers have approached the problem from the point of view of the large towns, but it must not be forgotten that the smaller country towns, towns of less than 50,000 inhabitants, have housing problems, in many instances more acute, if possible, than those of the great industrialised centres. Many of these towns are ancient towns, with houses built 100 or 120 years ago, and they are intensely interested in this Bill and its possible results. Ever since I have been in this House I have taken part in discussions on housing. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill in which he took off the subsidy, I expressed the opinion that without something else being done, sooner or later some Bill embodying the principle of a subsidy would have to be introduced. The stern fact is that private enterprise will not build houses for poor workmen at an economic rent. In the provincial towns such as that which I represent in this House a man who earns £2 3s. or £2 4s. a week is comparatively well paid. His wages are never more than that when he is working full time, but many of them do not earn more than 35s. or 36s. a week. In towns like that it is absolutely necessary, if you are to have a solution of this problem, that houses should be provided at economic rents according to the wages received. We were told on the last Housing Bill that the building societies would find the money, that the local authorities would be able to borrow the money from the building societies, and that we could do without the subsidy, but nothing of the sort has happened.
This is a Bill to prevent overcrowding. I have had the opportunity of consulting the housing committee of the borough of Wednesbury with regard to the provisions of the Bill, and the first point that the committee put up is that the basis of overcrowding contained in the First Schedule to the Bill is really hopeless. They point out that under the Housing Act of 1930, and in the Ministry of Health circulars thereunder, a varying scale is prescribed as the normal for certain types of houses. Under paragraph 14 of Circular 1138 the scale is as follows: Two-bedroom houses, four persons; three-bedroom houses, five persons; four-bedroom houses, seven persons. On the other hand, under this Bill overcrowding is deemed not to be reached until the following figures are exceeded: One room, two persons; two rooms, three persons; three rooms, five persons; four rooms, seven and a-half persons.
The Minister will note that the Bill refers to rooms, and the normal case in Wednesbury is that most of the houses are four-room houses. They are rather small, with a living room, a front parlour—which is the holy of holies, in which all the household gods are displayed—and two bedrooms. Under this Bill, which is introduced to prevent overcrowding, it will be possible for seven persons to live in a house of that type, and it will not be called overcrowded. We can have the mother and three daughters sleeping in one room and the father and two sons sleeping in the other room. I would suggest that that is not merely overcrowding, but gross overcrowding. Obviously there should be three bedrooms in a case of that kind. If the Minister's reply is that there are two rooms downstairs, who will go to these people and suggest that their front room, the holy of holies, should be turned into a bedroom? The first thing they would say would be, "What would the neighbours say?" I am satisfied that the Minister has not realised what exactly is the position in these small towns.
Let me take Clause 12 of the Bill. The Bill prevents the re-development powers applying to towns with under 50,000 population, but why should there be this arbitrary figure? If it is a good thing for the larger towns to have re-development schemes, to remove the slums from the centre of the town, and to re-build the centre of the town, all those conditions apply with even more force to many of the smaller towns of this country, some of which were built hundreds of years before the larger towns. Take the position in Wednesbury. We have less than 50,000 inhabitants, it is true, but we live in an area where three towns of that kind run into each other; that is to say, the whole of the area, containing about 80,000 people, is practically one town. How are the Wednesbury Corporation to deal with this question? They want a re-development scheme in the centre of the town. They say, "We do not see how we can deal satisfactorily with these areas near the centre of the town unless this Clause is to apply to us"; and they are particularly anxious that those Members of this House, irrespective of party, who represent the smaller towns should support them. In discussing this Bill, the more we keep out party politics the better it will be. We want to do what we can for our people, and I would suggest to those Members who represent towns of less than 50,000 inhabitants that they might very well join with us at Wednesbury in some attempt to get this Clause made to apply to the smaller towns.
The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who delivered a most excellent speech a few moments ago, seemed to suggest that there is a reason for taking housing out of the hands of the local authorities, and that suggestion is also contained in various Clauses in the Bill. There seems to be a kind of fashion in Government circles to suggest that, first of all, you should take unemployment out of the control of this House and of the local authorities, and now that you had better take housing out of their control also. I am satisfied that when it comes to housing, in spite of any charge that may be brought against any local council in the country, there is not a Member of this House, or a representative of the Ministry here, or any of their officials in Whitehall, who would not agree that where councils have dealt with housing they have done it in the best interests of their people, they have done it sincerely, and they have done it with far less corruption than we hear of in so far as private enterprise is concerned. What basis is there for this talk about corruption by local authorities? I have served on local authorities for many years, and we are jealous of the honour of our local authorities. The vast majority of us are proud of our local authorities and are careful to see that corruption does not creep in. The standard of public life in this country is one that I think every Member of this House ought to be willing to admire. Therefore, I am somewhat at a loss to understand why there is so much concern about the possible corruption of local authorities.
Then we get the story about the public utility societies and about this committee to which we are going to hand over all our local council houses, and all that kind of thing, and we get also the suggestion that we do not give the owners of property fair play. I have heard responsible Ministers of this Government declare in this House that the owner of slum property deserves no consideration whatever from this House. What has caused this change in the wind? Is it that Conservative Members have realised that the slum landlord and property-owner, after all, is a great supporter of the Conservative party? Cannot we approach this thing from the point of view of recognising that the man who gets rents from bad and insanitary houses is a danger to the community and is not fit to receive any consideration whatever, except the consideration that he has done an ill service to the community and should be punished for it? I know it is fashionable for Conservative Members to declare that the Labour party will not give fair play to the owner of property, but we have always been willing to give and have given them fair play, and, as a matter of fact, sometimes we have let our hearts run away with our heads. That is true so far as the owners of property are concerned. We have said, "After all, poor fellow, we cannot let him go without anything." There are Clauses in this Bill which mean that there is going to be delay and increased expense, and every additional charge under the Bill will eventually have to come out of the pockets of very poor people.
Someone said that we were discussing the economics of the poor when we were discussing this question of housing, and so we are. We are discussing the fundamental economics of the poor, because rents and housing accommodation play such a tremendous part in their lives. Take the poor people in my constituency, married men, with six days' work a week, and hard work at that, coming away with something less than £2 a week. Yet the Minister talks glibly about working people paying 10s. a week rent. My people cannot afford that amount; they cannot afford to pay 25 per cent. of their income in rent. The Government have to do something far better for my people than to find houses at 10s. a week rent. The question of overcrowding arises chiefly because the people are unable to pay the rents which are now demanded. They live with somebody else, not because they want to do so, but because they cannot afford to pay the rent of a house.
I would emphasise a point made by another speaker about people living in houses to themselves. The front door and the back door are their own, and when they are in the house it is indeed their castle. It would be a bad day if this new fashion for flats were to spread. I would rather see our people living in little houses of their own, where they can feel like kings in their own castles, than that they should be herded together like soldiers in barracks. It may be all right in London, but it will be a bad thing for provincial people. Very often this House and the Minister and his officials look at things from the point of view of London alone. I am a provincial, and look at this question from the point of view of the everyday lives of the men and women whom I represent.
New compensation is provided for the landlord in this Bill. Whenever there is a slum clearance scheme the Minister sends down an official to make an inquiry. There are some landlords who are a credit to themselves and who want to do the right thing and do it. Suppose in a slum area there are two houses which have been kept in good repair and in respect of which the landlord has done his duty. If the Minister's official declares that these two houses are good and that the landlord has done his duty, he can have compensation under the present law. The Minister knows that it is his duty now to give that protection to the good landlord to which he is entitled. I am very much afraid that what is contained in this Bill will be a temptation to the bad sort of landlord to get something to which he is not entitled and for which the poor people will eventually have to pay.
I trust that before this Bill is through all parties will combine to make it a really good Measure. It contains things which I look upon with a great deal of suspicion. I hear people talk glibly about the Octavia Hill scheme. Working people have a right to live their own lives. They are decent people in the main, and why should they be spied on and harried and told what to do and be subject to rules and regulations-because they happen to live in council houses? In the main these people are to be trusted, and their women folk are good, courageous women anxious to keep their houses clean and to look after their children. Why should they be subject to Nosey Parker type of people who tell them what to do and very often do not know what to do themselves?
This Bill almost suggests that if we are to have council and subsidised houses we must as a consequence have an army of this kind of people looking about, saying this and that, and prying here and there. One of the greatest privileges of the people of this country is that an Englishman's home is his castle, and this House should not very lightly part with liberties for which our forefathers fought and bled. I hope that the Minister will be good enough to take into consideration the points I have raised in regard to the position of the small towns of under 50,000 people, and the definition of what constitutes overcrowding as it applies to the small country town; and to remember that the flat system in London of one, two or three rooms may set up a standard of overcrowding which cannot be applied with equity to the small towns. I hope that between us we may make of the Bill a really good Measure for our people.
8.16 p.m.
It must have been a great joy to all Members of the House to hear the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) take such a strong stand on the side of the liberty of the subject. I will not endeavour to follow him with his Nosey Parkers round the council houses, but will endeavour to put forward some suggestions and slight criticisms of the Bill. This Measure is, in the words of the Lord President of the Council, the launching of a campaign without parallel in the history of the country to put an end for ever to slums and overcrowding. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who opened the Debate for the Opposition, observed that the Bill had been acclaimed by Press and public alike. Such a Bill, which is designed to end once and for all the evils of overcrowding should have the support of all right thinking people. Happily, it is possible in this House to co-operate and at the same time to criticise. Criticism that is constructive is helpful, and I wish to help. I have had little or no experience of slums, but I have for three different periods been chairman of the council of one of the largest, and certainly the most progressive, urban areas in the United Kingdom. I have seen a large number of houses erected by that authority under the Acts of 1919, 1923, and 1924, and have also on my own initiative developed a housing estate, not by what is commonly called ribbon development, but by making my own roads and sewers at a cost of thousands of pounds.
This Bill, which no doubt will get its Second Reading to-morrow night, aims at abolishing the great evils of slum areas, insanitary houses, and overcrowding. Practically all the houses coming within the scope of the Bill are old houses built long before building bylaws were dreamed of and before the present sanitary standards were con- sidered. All these old houses, however, should not be demolished merely because they are old. Many of them, especially in the rural areas, add a charm to our countryside. Most of them are soundly built, and they are to-day still warm and cosy and could be provided with satisfactory sanitation without spoiling either houses or village. Whenever an area of the urban type springs up round houses of this class, congestion takes the place of the open space, and the defects of the hemmed-in houses become evils. Where there is overcrowding by the occupants, they become a menace to the health of the community. No one can say that in these circumstances such old properties should not be demolished and new houses provided.
Up till now health officers have had to set their own standards and treat each case on its merits. They have had no statutory definition of overcrowding. Their findings have had to be such that they would bear investigation in case they might be called upon to appear before the local justices and answer objections. In this Bill, for the first time, overcrowding is defined. It is proposed to adjust the standards to a superficial or floor area basis and not to a cubic air space for each sleeper in a bedroom. I think that it is the sleeping room to which we should attach the greatest importance, as in this room the occupants spend the longest consecutive hours. To consider floor space without taking into consideration cubic air space is entirely wrong. All the houses to be deal with will be the old pre-by-law type in which most of the bedrooms are low, where rooms are inter-communicating, and where many are under sloping roofs and have small windows giving a minimum amount of light and fresh air. To consider these bedrooms on a floor area basis is wrong.
A typical case was brought to my notice last week of a bedroom with a floor area of 10 feet by 11 feet under a sloping roof 2 feet 9 inches high on one side and 6 feet 3 inches on the other, or an average height of 4½ feet. The cubic contents were 495 cubic feet, or less than 250 cubic feet per adult if occupied by two adults. In this room there were two beds, the occupants of which were two girls aged 16 and 12, and two boys aged 14 and 8. Floor area would be all right if it were combined with a minimum cubic air space per adult sleeper. Also, each bedroom should have a window or windows that will open, the total area of such window or windows to be not less than one-tenth of the floor area. The Bill, however, does fix the age for children to be classed for this purpose as adults. In the past we have taken 12 years, and I welcome the change to 10 years, because a young, active 10-year-old will use up as much air as an adult.
It is gratifying to know that at long last overcrowding is to be an offence. The owners of houses must notify the local authority of all such cases, and the local authority must remove all overcrowding. I am also glad to think that Clause 59 is designed to give relief to a landlord who can prove that he has done his best with his property, although that property may be in a slum area. I want to say here and now that I stand for adequate compensation in respect of property included in clearance schemes. I would inform hon. Members who take the opposite view that I would not ask the Minister to support or help the greedy or rapacious landlord, who is content to exact the maximum rent while doing the minimum of repairs. Nor do I ask for any help in relation to property which is in such bad condition that it should obviously be pulled down. I want to help the average property owner, who is not a bloated capitalist, as some of our friends on the opposite side of the House seem to think, but owns property on a comparatively small scale, and who looks after that property because he considers it his duty to do so and is content with a fair return.
So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, it must be borne in mind that in ascertaining the rateable value of a house there is a reduction from the gross rental of an allowance for repairs, which varies in the case of small houses from 33⅓ per cent. to 40 per cent. It rather appears that this fact has been taken as a measure of compensation, because if a landlord can prove that he has spent more than 25 per cent. per annum of the rental on repairs he is to be refunded that excess. The Clause therefore benefits only those owners who have spent more than the statutory allowance for repairs. At any rate that is my reading of the basis on which compensation is given. I know that property owners feel that in every case an amount equivalent to what would be the Estate Duty valuation of the property should be paid, but I understood the Minister to say when the Debate opened this afternoon that the present provision goes far enough in view of the clear provision of Clause 58 in favour of fit houses in a clearance area.
A few words on the all-important subject of finance. To provide financial assistance towards re-housing displaced tenants the Treasury may, if satisfied that the local authority requires it, make a grant not to exceed £5 per house for 20 years, and after this the local authority must contribute through the rates a sum equal to half the Treasury grant. In a rural area the grant may be from £2 to £8 per house for 40 years. I submit to the Minister that these are not very encouraging terms. I also do not agree with the pooling of subsidies. The Bill provides that all subsidies, whether under the Acts of 1919 or 1923 or 1924 or other Acts, should be pooled and spread over the whole. The 1919 houses were a panic provision following war. They were hastily conceived and produced a vicious circle. All labour and materials were controlled at that time. Every one of the 1919 houses cost the taxpayer more than £1,000 to build and an annual amount of about £44, as well as the product of a penny rate upon the local ratepayers. The cost of a house of a better type under later Acts has been £285, plus the site. These houses have baths, hot and cold water, electric light and all conveniences, and rents of 4s. or 5s. a week meet all the repayments and maintenance charges. Why should the work of the municipal architects of the last year or two be penalised and have to bear the burden of these 1919 houses? Why scale up the houses of later years in order that the 1919 houses, by means of the pool, can be scaled down? It would be far better to deal with the 1919 houses by cutting the loss and selling them to the suggested public utility societies, with a proviso that the houses were sold at such a figure that they could be let at rents which, with rates, do not exceed 10s. a week, and allow the more recently-built houses to stand on their own.
The Treasury could borrow all the money required at 3 per cent. as easily as they could negotiate the conversion of War Loan on a 3 per cent. basis. If such a national building loan were raised by the Government at 3 per cent., and loaned to local authorities for approved schemes at 3½ per cent. for a period of 50 or 60 years, then all the houses needed could be built by local authorities and let lat a rental, including rates, of less than 10s. a week, without any subsidy whatever. I am aware that to do this land would have to be available at a reasonable cost, but a Clause could be inserted in this Bill giving local authorities the power to acquire land when it is required for the erection of workers' dwellings at a price say, equal to two or three times the present rentals received from such lands capitalised at 4 per cent. on such double-rental basis. By such a method there would be no need for Treasury grants or subsidies. The Treasury would raise a national building loan at 3 per cent. and lend it at 3½ per cent., and such a loan would be gilt-edged. The Bill proposes to set up a central board or advisory committee. I suggest that there should be one such committee for each county, including practical men such as architects and municipal administrations. The county committees would have a greater knowledge of the needs of their particular counties, and each committee should be required to nominate one of its members to the centre. Having put forward these considered suggestions and criticisms, I feel sure that they will receive the Minister's careful consideration. I will conclude by congratulating the Minister and his Department upon the production of a Measure of great national importance, designed to promote the greater happiness of thousands of our working people.
8.27 p.m.
One need be in the House for a very short time to observe that it is necessary for the Opposition to put up some case, or there would be no Debate. I was astounded to hear that the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) was not in favour of flats being erected for the working class. He said that the working class of the large towns preferred to have houses of their own, and I might agree with him there, but, when he refers generally to the flats which are to found in the country to-day as barracks, he is a long way wide of the mark. I have made a study of flats and how they would appeal to the working class. One does not assume that any local council or any body of opinion would agree that flats would be of any use in a Durham mining village, or in any area where workers can have houses built close to their work. When you take a large town like Newcastle-upon-Tyne—
What about Manchester?
Yes, or the hon. Member's own constituency of Wednesbury, where there are works close to the centre of the town and workmen have to live in cottages four or five miles away from their work and bear the additional weekly charge of travelling; if that is put up to the workmen—
I am sure the hon. Member has no desire to mislead the House about the conditions of life in my constituency. I know my constituency very well indeed, and I want to inform the hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Denville) that, far from it being the case that people live four or five miles from their work, the town is so built that small cottages are clustered round the works. I suggested in my speech that the type of man accustomed all his life to live in a cottage with four rooms all to himself, would not prefer to live in a flat.
I agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member, and with the suggestion made by one of my hon. Friends that such associations will keep people living in a certain way and that under normal conditions they will not like to change. I know almost every street in Wednesbury. It is one of those peculiar towns in that part of the country where you find a large number of cottages, such as those of which the hon. Member has spoken. There is street after street of them, with very few large houses. I am very interested, and I have been for a long time, in this subject, as the Minister of Health will be aware. Over two years ago I brought my views upon the subject of flats before the Minister, and they were not very favourably received. It is therefore very pleasing to find that the Minister has now come to the conclusion that the only way to relieve the tension in housing in large towns, is by building flats which hold large numbers of people.
I would ask the Opposition if it is not better for the working-classes to live in flats such as we can find within a hundred yards of where I am now standing. Take the case of some of the London County Council flats, where the rooms and conveniences are exceptionally good, and the workmen pay a rent of about 10s. per week. When I say 10s. per week, I am referring only to London. In the provinces flats such as there now are in London could be erected at much less cost, and they could have every convenience, three rooms and all the usual offices—without stairs—at a rent of about 7s. per week all in. I am sure that that would meet the wishes of the workmen.
During the last few years I have made it my business to go to several cities throughout the world and to see the flat system in most of our European capitals, as well as in several cities of America. I speak as one who has lived among the workers in many areas. I have lived in cottages in the county of Durham, and I can vouch for the cleanliness of those cottages as well as for the people who keep them. I recommend to my fellow countrymen and particularly to working-class people that they should seriously consider the benefits of flats such as I dare say the Minister of Health is acquainted with. Take such flats as are found in Budapest, Berlin, Cologne and even in Naples, marvellous flats with three or four rooms, bath and every convenience, and for a rent which, in their money, is equivalent to about 7s. per week. In Budapest the flats are run by a committee of the people who live in them, and, instead of there being, as one would naturally suppose, a demand for all the bottom flats, the demand is for the top flats. They are not barracks, and I ask hon. Members seriously to get that barracks business out of their minds once and for all.
When I have spoken on this matter in my constituency, I have had this sort of thing hurled at me from the front: "You want us to live in barracks." I have seen flats for which if they were built in London people would have to pay two guineas or three guineas per week. It is probably all due to sentiment that objections are raised to what is only an endeavour on the part of the Minister to make it possible for people in cities like Newcastle, Manchester and Liverpool to live somewhere near their work, so that not so much time is wasted in going to and from work, with all the additional cost that is involved. While the Minister is here, I should like to draw his attention to a strong comment which was made in a recent case in County Durham. I do not know whether it has been referred to before in the Debate; if so, I am sorry. Judge Richardson criticised the Housing Act of 1930 in connection with the appeal of Thomas Brown, the owner of two houses in Back Lane, Easington, against demolition orders made by the Easington Rural District Council. The report of the case in the "Newcastle Journal" reads as follows: case in Newcastle, that of an old lady of about 80, whose property was bought for her through the medium of a building society. It has been condemned. The ground does not belong to her at all, but it is a question of three or four houses being pulled down, and the result will be that she will lose her houses. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I drew his attention to the fact that they were not really in bad repair, but it is desired to widen the road at this point, and the excuse has been made that these houses are in a slum clearance area in order that a wider road may be obtained. It will mean that this unfortunate individual will lose her only means of support. If such a thing does happen, I think it will bring discredit upon the Ministry of Health and the Government, and I do not wish to see that happen. I have every confidence that the Minister, given a fair chance to look at these cases, will give them that consideration to which they are entitled.
8.41 p.m.
I find myself in agreement with two or three of the proposals in the Bill. In the first place, speaking for myself only, I look upon modern blocks of flats with a great deal more favour that perhaps at present, most of my party do. I believe that blocks of flats are the only solution for the terrible overcrowding that exists in the centre of London. I quite understand the prejudice that many people have against blocks of flats, but I believe it has been based upon the old type of horrible, barrack-like buildings which used to be so common in many parts of London. Anybody who has seen the most recent examples of big blocks of flats must have realised that there has been during the last few years a revolutionary improvement in this direction. Indeed, I go so far as to say that I am not against five, or six, or even eight-storey flats. In Germany I have stayed in flats of 10 storeys, and I should not have been ashamed to live in them altogether. Of course the whole point is that these modern flats must have modern amenities. That means modern lifts, central heating, and that in most cases the blocks of flats shall not occupy more than from a quarter to a third of the total land upon which they are erected. I am told by a high authority that even in Central London sites can be obtained for modern flats where only a quarter of the land need be built upon, if they are of six or eight storeys, with amenities, such as lifts and so on. I think that, when hon. Members have seen these modern examples, many of their prejudices will disappear, and they will realise that, as against the alternative of travelling frequently distances of five or six miles, the only solution in congested areas in London is to develop these modern types of flats.
Another point upon which I agree is in regard to the re-development plans contained in Clause 12 of the Bill. I look upon them with favour, as long as the conditions laid down in paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ) of Sub-section (1) are not too severe. I feel that it is rather a pity that the figure of 50 houses should have been retained, and that the conditions as to houses being unfit for human habitation, congestion, overcrowding and so on, must apply to at least half the total houses in the area. These are rather restrictive conditions which it might be difficult to comply with in many parts of the country.
The third thing which I think is of importance is that, for the first time in our history, a definite yardstick for overcrowding is to be introduced into an Act of Parliament. I know the Minister has said that for the past 70 or 80 years it has been stated that overcrowding was illegal, but nobody has been able to say with any definiteness what really constituted overcrowding. Now we have a definite standard, however low it may be, for the measurement of overcrowding, and I regard that as a landmark in our housing legislation. It must not, however, be taken that I think this standard is satisfactory. Of course I do not. I can see quite well that it may be the best obtainable at the present time. An average London flat is probably one of three rooms. I should think there are more three-roomed flats than any other kind. Under this standard of overcrowding it would be possible in a three-roomed flat to have a man, wife and three children in one room and four children sleeping in the living room.
indicated dissent.
I think the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. A man, wife and seven, children under 10 years of age—
Were there triplets in the family?
I do not know. I should think it would be possible to have seven children under 10 without there being triplets, but probably the right hon. Gentleman knows more about it than I do. I cannot quite see his point. There might be a baby under 12 months. A baby is not counted, I understand, in the ascertainment. Six children under 10 would make six halves of three adults, three and two are five, and I understand you may have five persons in a three-roomed flat according to the first Schedule of the Bill. If the Minister considers that it is impossible to have seven children in 10 years, he should look round a bit in London or inquire from his hon. Friends behind him. It often happens in fact.
At the same time I do not think that those who suffer from the misery of overcrowding in London should be too optimistic about these provisions. I do not think that those who profit out of overcrowding, as so many property owners do in the exorbitant rents that are being charged, need worry very much for a long time about the effect of these provisions. I fear that overcrowding, despite this Bill and the yard-stick, will be with us for very many years yet. In fact, if overcrowding is materially reduced in the next 10 years I shall be very surprised and pleased indeed. For example, the survey will take time. The Minister dismissed it very lightly in his reply to me to-day. He seemed to indicate that I had misunderstood him and that the survey would occupy a few weeks or a month or so at the outside in most areas. My information is very different. I have inquired of several medical officers in West London, and one told me that medical officers had been in conference, and they considered it would take from nine to 12 months. If that be the case in West London, I think the few weeks will be stretched out a good deal, and that is only the survey. I have not noticed any time limit as to the provision of the houses at all in Clause 1. I can imagine local authorities spending some years before they begin to operate the Clause at all as it ought to be operated. Most important of all, no action can be taken to mitigate overcrowding until suitable alternative accommodation is available. But that is the whole crux of the problem. The chief reason why there is overcrowding is that there is no suitable alternative accommodation, so that the property owners and the miserable tenants in these overcrowded areas need not worry, because they cannot be moved until they can be offered this nonexistent alternative accommodation. In other words, there can be no remedy until there has been a revolutionary improvement in the building of houses for poor people. Nothing will happen on a big scale for many years to come unless I am very much mistaken.
I do not think hon. Members realise the extent of this overcrowding problem. Some housing experts have been saying that what we want is a million houses at 10s. a week, and many people in the House have put that view forward. I think a very large number of London Members will admit that in almost any borough in this great City if they advertised 5,000 three-roomed flats at 15s. or even 18s. a week there would be scores of thousands of applicants. Every borough in London almost has a list of thousands of applicants asking for flats and willing to pay 12s. or 15s. That can be verified even in the East of London. The 1931 Census reported that there are over 2,000,000 persons living over two to a room. It is probably true that over a fourth of our working-class population live in overcrowded conditions. The bulk of our houses were built in the nineteenth century; therefore millions of them are over 50 years old. Probably at least 4,000,000 of them need replacing according to decent modern standards. I do not know what the average life of a house should be, but I suggest that 100 years is a fairly good term for a normal house. That being so, we must allow 1 per cent. sinking fund for depreciation to keep up the normal level, and, if there are 10,000,000 houses, according to my arithmetic, we need 100,000 new houses a year to keep up the normal supply. To relieve overcrowding and to replace houses below a decent standard, over and above this 1 per cent. depreciation you must have at least 5,000,000 new houses in the next 10 or 15 years, or over 300,000 annually. Sir Ernest Simon in his anti-slum book says that 6,000,000 houses are needed. If that be true, the Bill gives little hope of fulfilling those needs. In fact, I doubt whether a single brick will be laid under the Bill in the lifetime of the National Government.
Then there is the question of the housing management commissioners. I understand that the responsibilies of local authorities may be farmed out, and I believe some local councils will jump at the offer. I have no doubt that the Royal Borough of Kensington will jump at it. They have always been willing, anxious and eager to shelve their responsibilities. I wonder if hon. Members realise that the borough of Kensington—and I know it very well; nobody knows it better—the second richest borough in London, where a penny rate brings in, roughly, £13,000 a year, is spending on housing to-day, apart from the compulsory penny rate under the Addison Act—one-third of a penny only upon curing the slums and the shocking conditions in North Kensington. It is the most scandalous case of which I know in the whole of Great Britain. I can forgive Poplar, where a penny rate amounts only to £3,000, spending 2d. or 3d. in the pound, but when you have the second richest borough in London spending only one-third of a penny because of the craze for keeping down the rates, it is shocking, disgusting and inhuman.
I cannot possibly answer the whole of the attack made upon the borough of Kensington, but the Royal Borough of Kensington is one of the only two boroughs in London that have effected de-crowding in an improvement area.
De-crowding has been done mainly by public utility societies, by various Peabody Trusts and others. If the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) will look at the report of the medical officer of health, he will discover that there is a northern ward which has had an infantile death rate of 120 per 1,000, which is four times higher than the similar death rate of the rich borough of South Kensington. I do not think that any whitewashing will be sufficient to cover up the disgraceful conditions in that area, although the hon. Member will no doubt be able to do some whitewashing when his turn comes to speak.
It would be only fair to the Royal Borough of Kensington if the hon. Gentleman would also recognise the fact that special steps were taken to deal with the infant death rate, and that the infant death rate this year is considerably lower.
If the hon. Member knows his own constituency he will agree that, not just for one year, but for the last 20 years—which are a good criterion—the death rates of these areas have been from 30 to 50 per cent. above the death rates in poor areas in the East End of London, and have averaged 25 per cent. above the average London rate. That will take some replying to. The fluctuation of one year will have very little effect. The average of this ward is over 100 per thousand for the last 10 years. The hon. Member will have an opportunity to refute these figures, if he can, when his turn comes to address the House. With regard to the question of farming out the responsibilities, I believe that the fundamental idea of the Minister and his advisers in giving the responsibility to housing management commissioners, which will be jumped at by the Royal Borough of Kensington and similar boroughs in London, is to take housing out of politics. I really wonder whether the giving of those powers to commissioners will take the matter out of politics. I believe that there still will be politics in housing, only it will be a different kind of politics. I remember that in Kensington there were ladies who went round certain streets which were at certain times Labour strongholds from the window-card point of view, and that after these streets were taken over by these ladies all the Labour cards disappeared and no one dared display them any more. A few cards were displayed, but they were National placards. People took Labour placards out of the parlour window, but National placards were left in.
One notices how politics become vital when Labour gets control of any administration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] When I have finished hon. Members perhaps will not say "Hear, hear" so readily. We never heard of politics on the boards of guardians until Labour began to get control of them, when there was an allegation at once of bribery and corruption. We never heard of propaganda in schools and elsewhere until some schoolmaster became Radical or Labour. He was suspected at once if not a member of the old Tory party. There had been Tory politics for 70 years. As long as one talked about the "boys of the Bulldog breed" and that kind of thing, it was not politics but good national spirit. When one was on the extreme right it did not matter, but if one became a centre-forward there was such a swing and difference between the extreme right and centre-forward positions that immediately one was regarded as a politician. The same is true about housing. The truth is that, taking politics out of housing means taking Labour politics out of housing. Very little was done in housing from the point of view of really improving the condition of houses for the people until politics came into housing. When the provision of housing accommodation was left to the untrammelled powers of private enterprise, it resulted in the slums of East London and in the shocking streets and foul houses that constitute so large a proportion of London and other cities. That was when there was no check upon private enterprise and politicians never interfered. I suggest that the politicians of all parties have greatly improved housing, despite the opposition of the private enterprise people.
I now come to the compensation Clauses, and, generally speaking, it is true to say that compensation is being increased in the Clauses introduced into the Bill. However much I disagreed with the Minister—I sometimes thought that he was rather callous in his outlook; perhaps I was wrong—I always thought that he was a brave and courageous kind of Minister. I noticed how he began talking about the slum property in a very brave way. He talked about not paying the butcher for bad meat, and that he had no right to demand payment for bad meat and so on. I thought that at last we had a Conservative Minister who dared to stand up to slum owners and vested interests. But things have happened since then. He has, apparently, changed his philosophy. I tried to find some explanation of his change of philosophy, and I saw the following in the "Observer," which supports the Minister and the Royal Borough of Kensington too. Mr. J. L. Garvin, referring to the Tory Conference at Bristol, said that the delegates at the Tory Conference seemed more concerned about the compensation of the slum landlord than purturbed by the suffering of the slum tenant. Mr. Garvin seems to understand the mind of some of the Tory supporters. The Minister has quite changed his philosophy. He says, in effect, that there will be no payment for bad meat unless it is well wrapped up in good, clean paper, and that in that event they will give a nice, new, additional bonus to all slum owners, even if their property is injurious to life. Here is a Minister who would not pay for bad meat, now going to pay for it if it be wrapped up in clean paper. That is what they mean on the other side by keeping housing out of politics. The providing of cheaper houses for poor people by the local authority smacks of politics, but the giving of slum landlords additional compensation in respect of shocking slum property is not introducing politics in housing, but merely doing what is proper, constitutional, just and generous. The fact that the Tory Conference by its politics was able to gain compensation for vested interests in property, was not political influence for vested interests. It is only when the poor workmen does it that it is called political influence. It depends where it comes from.
The Government housing policy has not been very successful. They boast about the number of houses that have been built, although they know that the majority of them have been built for sale. To try and compel workers to buy houses may well be a tragic policy. For a workman with a wage of £3 or £4 per week to bind himself for 15 or 20 years to pay an instalment out of his small wage from often insecure employment may be a very sad thing for that workman, and may often lead to the introduction of lodgers and to greater overcrowding than was the case before he bought the house. The proof of the Government's failure can be found in the exorbitant rents charged in London, especially in West London. The high rents are, like overcrowding, due to shortage of houses. The law of supply and demand affects the rent question as much as it affects every commodity. The terrible rents often take from 25 to 50 per cent. of the wages of the worker. These rents result in fortunes for the property owners while they have resulted, as many a medical officer testify, in undernourishment and semi-starvation for scores of thousands of poor families in London.
The Government have boasted about their slum scheme. It is only in progressive areas such as Leeds and Sheffield, Labour areas, that slum clearance has been tackled in an adequate manner.
indicated dissent.
The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Will he compare the slum clearance scheme in Leeds with, say, the scheme in Birmingham. He will discover that, generally speaking, the slum clearances adopted by cities like Leeds are from five to six times greater than the slum clearances adopted in cities or towns with similar or even greater populations, and with an even greater slum problem. The Government thought that private enterprise would solve the housing problem. They have declared that subsidies are unnecessary, although every authority has stated to the contrary. The present Bill proclaims the failure of private enterprise and shows that the complacency of the Minister with the present housing system and his policy for three years have been entirely unjustifiable. Now, in the fourth year of the Government's existence, the Minister decides that the State and the local authorities must come to the rescue.
I predict that this Housing Bill, despite two or three welcome innovations in it, will be a failure from the point of view of relieving overcrowding and providing an adequate number of houses for the people. I am confident that it will fail to solve the housing shortage and that the country as a whole will realise that the Measure is a failure. In the words of a very famous former supporter of the Government, after the next Election hundreds of hon. Members on the benches opposite will be known no more in this House.
9.10 p.m.
I should like to offer my congratulations to the Minister on his very clear explanation of this Bill. We are accustomed to hear the most perfect use of the English language from him on all occasions and to-day he has com- bined with that a sympathy and understanding which must be the very basis of all successful housing legislation. May I also congratulate him on producing a Bill which, except for the Schedules and a few of the Clauses, is both readable and comprehensible to the ordinary individual. That is in itself an achievement. Although there may be differences as to detail, I find it impossible to understand party strife on the principle of this great Bill. It really is factious opposition on this type of legislation that makes so many ordinary citizens feel, if I may use the term, fed up with party politics.
The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) seemed to me to spend most of his time referring to the perfections of his own Act rather than in dealing with the Bill under discussion. He kept referring to what we were trying to do in this Measure as nothing but an electioneering stunt. In his speeches in the country since the Bill was published he has called the Bill nothing but window dressing. I realise how very annoying it must be for him not even to have thought of putting this legislation into his window when he was managing director of the housing business of the country. I think the Press as a whole has really sensed public opinion in this matter. Even the "Daily Herald," on the day after the Bill was published, stated, in a leader, that the legislation was "a distinct change for the better." No mean praise coming from that quarter. I feel certain that the right hon. Gentleman who may be described as the Member for the New British Deal must also rejoice at the quick, I might almost say premature, response to at least one aspect of his programme.
No one will deny the very high standard of social services that we have evolved in this country. We have given a lead and are giving a lead to other nations all over the world in that matter, but it is a strange thing that housing as a whole has lagged behind. One might almost draw the analogy that just as many of our world economic problems to-day are the result of distribution not keeping pace with production, so many of our social problems at home are the result of housing policy as a whole not having kept pace with our other social services. I am very glad that the National Government are determined to make up for lost time in the only possible way by dealing with the whole question of housing on the biggest scale ever attempted by any country.
It would hardly be human if one did not have an extra interest in legislation which is to help the district or the area which one represents in this House, and I am specially glad that one of the main objects of the Bill is to improve the housing conditions in the centres of large towns and cities, of which London of course is the biggest proposition, where, in spite of the huge sums of money that have been spent, very little comparatively has been done to relieve overcrowding and congestion. Hon. Members who represent constituencies such as mine know from personal experience, and from their daily post bags, that the majority of people wish to be re-housed near where they have always lived, close to their work, and at rents which they can afford, which even in London is often not more than 10s. and frequently less.
The main method of dealing with the problem under the Bill is by re-development. Everyone who has worked on a housing committee in a large city knows the great difficulty of finding suitable sites just exactly where they are required. Some have been found, and some are still being found, to deal with slum clearance under the 1930 Act, but they are becoming more and more difficult to find. Under this Bill the redevelopment of whole areas will be possible on a really large scale. This is what has been needed in London for years, and is undoubtedly a practical application of town planning. In this redevelopment piecemeal improvements will be a thing of the past. One can visualise whole districts in London where re-development will once and for all banish those rows and rows of dark and dreary streets, where there is hardly a chance tree or flower to break the monotony. I cannot believe that the conditions in Clause 12, to which hon. Members have referred, will hold up these schemes in London to any extent, and I am sure that when the schemes are brought before the Minister of Health he will consider every one with the utmost sympathy and meet the London County Council in every way possible. I hope the day is not far distant when the "East End" will only have a geographical meaning and will be as pleasant a place to live in as anywhere else in London.
Actual re-housing in these areas can only be done in the form of blocks of flats, and the examples placed in the tearoom and in the Ministry of Health show the possible variety and beauty of these buildings. Beauty to my mind is an essential feature of all these redevelopment plans. I have visited many flats recently which have been erected in different parts of London and I can assure the Noble Lord that the people really like this form of accommodation now. It is so entirely different from that which was known in the old days as tenement building. I hope also that blocks of flats will not be limited to five storeys. I think we shall be obliged to go higher, if we are to re-house in sufficient numbers, and it would be absurd in these schemes of re-development to rule out higher buildings simply through lack of inventive imagination to provide lifts at suitable rates. I hope that the opportunity will be taken to simplify and unify all building regulations so that costs can be reduced by the use of up-to-date methods. It is only in this way that costs will be brought down as low as possible.
The Clauses dealing with re-conditioning, if they are used energetically, will be of enormous help and will do a great deal to dispel the drabness of many of the old-fashioned houses which were built years ago for one family, but which, without any internal alteration, are now housing four and five families. If housing associations could work together on this matter they could accomplish much.
There is one question which I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with, and that is the question of alternative accommodation. The lack of alternative accommodation during demolition in the first instance has held up many housing schemes, and this problem is bound to be the crux of the Bill as far as speed is concerned. It is laid down and quite rightly that it is the duty of the local authority to secure alternative accommodation in advance of displacement. I should like to know whether the Minister has any new suggestions to make with regard to this all-important matter. I can only give my personal opinion and suggestion as regards London. I believe that the only way in which we shall be able to move quickly in the congested parts of London is by a certain redistribution of some of the open spaces and parks. I do not for a moment suggest that Londoners should be deprived of a single tree or blade of grass, but I do suggest that if you could build large blocks of flats on 10 or 15 acres of open space or park near the centre of the congested area you could make a comparatively quick start with your re-development scheme. The houses of the people who are moved into these flats would be pulled down. Then an open space, equal to that which you have taken from the park, could be provided, where the need for it is probably in many instances far greater. I am suggesting this for one reason only, and that is to help in starting the machinery for the building of houses under the Bill. If there are any better suggestions for providing immediate and quick alternative accommodation, it is important that local authorities should be made aware of them at the earliest opportunity. If not, then I hope the Minister will take into consideration the suggestion I have made; otherwise I doubt whether progress in de-crowding and re-development in certain areas, and those often the worst, will be as quick as we desire.
One word in connection with the housing commissioners. I hope that local authorities will avail themselves of the suggestion, but, if not, then I hope that the whole question of house management will be far more closely studied by local authorities. Most people will agree with the Moyne Report, that properly trained women are well suited for this kind of work, and I hope they will be given further encouragement to take it up. When the new Bill comes into operation they will be specially useful not only in seeing that the law with regard to overcrowding is enforced, but also in explaining the value of the overcrowding standard. There are many arguments as to detail, but this is not the time to discuss them. Taken as a whole, the Bill is a conclusive answer to those who have accused the Government of having no big piece of long-term planning.
The importance of this Measure cannot be over-estimated. It stretches far beyond actual de-crowding, re-development and re-conditioning. By its very size, at one end it must help the whole position of unemployment, by employing many of our citizens, and at the other end it is bound to deal indirectly, but none the less surely, with the whole question of leisure. Great attention has been given to the speech of the Minister of Labour and to what he said on this all-important problem the other day in the House. The provision of occupational and recreational centres is of very great value, but surely the provision of good homes with sufficient space to make it a pleasure and not a burden to stay at home is the very foundation of improved leisure conditions. When the actual working hours, days, and probably the working years decrease, as they are bound to do to keep pace with modern civilisation, it seems to me that the home and the surroundings of the home will become ever more and more important. Therefore, I do feel that from every point of view the Government can claim to be introducing a Measure of social reform and reconstruction equal in importance to any in the history of this country.
9.26 p.m.
Everybody who has listened to the Debate to-day must have been deeply impressed by the wide difference between the brave words of the Socialist Amendment and the speeches which have been addressed to that Amendment. We read in the Order Paper of the situation being aggravated by the policy of the Government, that this Bill falls short in this particular and that of the ideal standard set by the gentlemen on the Opposition benches, and the speeches which have been delivered, notably the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) have only demonstrated beyond all question what a really good Bill this is, and how difficult it is to find any real criticism against it.
I do not propose—it would be impertinent on my part to attempt it—to deal with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman delivered from the Front Bench. I am sure all who heard that speech and the one that followed it must have been deeply impressed by the difference. My right hon. Friend, with whom I had the honour of sitting for many months on the Moyne Committee, delivered, as all expected he would, a speech which was a helpful contribution. Since then we have had contributions from the Labour benches. There was a notable speech from the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. R. Strauss), who represented, as I understand, the point of view of the London County Council, in which he said, first of all, that the provisions of this Bill were going to hold up development. He said it would be impossible to make agreements with landowners until this Bill had passed into law. I find it very difficult to understand that, for the compensation provisions are already ante-dated, and any bargain which takes place dates back to December.
In dealing with that particular section, he made another criticism. He said: "This is going to be much more expensive. The concessions which are being made in this Bill will cost the London County Council 50 per cent. more in compensation." If that be true, it is the biggest justification there could be for this provision, because the substantial provision in this Bill with regard to slum clearance is that where honest and genuine efforts have been made by a slum landlord to keep his property in repair he should have due consideration; and, if it really be true that that will add 50 per cent. to the finance bill of the London County Council, I am sure the Minister must realise that it is high time that that provision did come into operation.
I am not a London member, and perhaps I ought not to speak about this matter at all. I only want to say one other thing about the speech that the hon. Gentleman made. He complained about the standard of alternative accommodation, saying that that was adding to the difficulties of local authorities. He cannot really have understood what is in the Bill, because the definition of alternative accommodation is that any house that is provided by the local authority is suitable, irrespective of its position, irrespective of other qualifications, and the only time when difficulties may arise and where strict conditions have to be fulfilled is where the alternative accom- modation offered to someone who is displaced is not provided by the local authority.
I do not desire to detain the House long, and I leave these speeches. One other speech, the last heard from those benches, was the speech of the hon. Gentleman for Hammersmith, North (Mr. West). He repeated the phrase which we have heard many times this afternoon, the criticism of the farming out of responsibilities to the housing management commissions, as though it were compulsory, as though this were a Government of Praetorians endeavouring to compel local authorities to give up their rights and duties. It is entirely an optional provision. There are up and down the country certain local authorities who do not regard the ownership and the management of housing as being within the proper ambit of an elected body, and that is a point of view which, although we may not all of us accept, has some semblance of reason about it. Those of us who sat on the Moyne Committee made this one of our recommendations. I think I speak for all my colleagues on that Committee when I say we were, above all things, impressed by the importance of management as a factor in good housing. All the evidence we had and all the visits we made to housing estates convinced us more and more that it is good management which is at the basis of good housing. Surely it is a very little thing to facilitate local authorities who desire to have expert management. I pass over as a little unworthy, even of him, the sneer which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield allowed himself in speaking of Miss Octavia Hill. That is all I desire to say about the speeches which have been made from the Opposition Benches.
We are discussing what is perhaps the major domestic Measure of this Session, and the first thing which I would desire to say to the House is that this Bill would not be possible at all if it were not for the work which has already been done in slum clearance. We start from that position. This is a Bill to deal with the second part, the problem of overcrowding. It is a courageous and very hopeful attack on the problem of overcrowding. Nobody who has any experience of industrial conditions needs to be reminded of the tragedies—that is not too strong a word—which sometimes exist in our big cities, particularly in those which go back, like London and my own City of Bristol, to before the industrial revolution, where overcrowding exists in houses which were built in the eighteenth century and the early half of the nineteenth century for prosperous people with large families, and are now occupied by large numbers of people who are below the poverty line. That is one of the worst aspects of the whole problem.
The first provision the Bill makes is a national standard of overcrowding. To have a national standard at all is a great achievement. There have been some slight efforts to criticise that standard. Nobody, not even the strongest supporter of the Bill, would say that the standard which is laid down in the Clause and in the Schedule is an ideal housing standard. It is not intended to be; it is a minimum below which a criminal offence is committed. I think anybody who realises what the history of housing in this country has been must recognise that it is a great achievement to have that standard at all.
I only want to ask the Minister or the Under-Secretary one question with regard to it. The first principle, the principle of the segregation of the sexes, I think everybody would accept. The second principle is based upon the combination of floor space and number of rooms. I am told that many local authorities prefer the test of cubic content. Has the Minister satisfied himself, from consultation with his own medical advisers, that the measurement of floor space is equally as acceptable as the measurement of cubic content?
I have heard outside, and one has read in some newspapers, criticisms of the housing standard, based on the idea that if you have a standard you are unduly interfering with the private lives of the people. That, of course, is not a just criticism of this Bill. As I understand the Bill it is not proposed to enforce these standards in the sense that the Minister and his satellites are going to creep about in rubber-soled boots at night to see if everyone is sleeping in the right bedroom. All that the Bill will do is to establish a standard, and, having done that, the use which people make of the accommodation is their own affair. It is an unfair criticism to treat this Bill as an undue infringement of the liberties of the people. There is no offence, of course, until alternative accommodation is available. You cannot enforce the standard until you have given people somewhere else to go. I wonder whether it might not be desirable to strengthen the position a little bit more by saying that no offence is committed not only until there is alternative accommodation, but until a reasonable notice has been given by the local authority to the landlord or the occupiers? The notice need be only a short one of 14 or 28 days. I can conceive cases of hardship arising where a local authority might want to prosecute someone who had not realised that he had committed an offence. I do not think it would hold up the progress of de-crowding if the local authority were bound to give 14 or 28 days' notice to anyone that he was about to be prosecuted for committing an offence.
Does my hon. Friend suggest notice as to the availability of accommodation or notice that the occupant has committed an offence and is liable to prosecution?
I had in mind a notice of all the circumstances, including available accommodation, which would constitute the offence.
That is the actual standard. It becomes the duty of the local authority to enforce that standard and to provide alternative accommodation, which they can do either by re-conditioning individual houses, by setting up re-development areas or by re-building, and the Bill provides that for all these purposes they shall have Government assistance. In a speech which we all read with great pleasure the other day the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), among many other interesting things said that a housing programme of considerable dimensions is imperative. Here it is; here is a housing programme of considerable dimensions. No one knows, no one can know, until the survey is undertaken, until the local authorities have done their work, the exact extent of the accommodation which will be necessary, but as I udder-stand the Bill, whatever the extent of that accommodation may be, if it is 1,000,000 houses or 5,000,000 houses, it will still be the duty of the local authorities to provide those houses, and it will be the duty and the pleasure of this House to assist them financially in that purpose.
The re-development areas have already been dealt with by the hon. Lady opposite. In a re-development area you may have to acquire what is sound property for the purpose of completing your area, property against which there can be no criticism, and the basis of compensation which is laid down in the Bill for that purpose is the basis of market value, to which I think there can be no objection. But there are certain other compensation provisions about which I desire to say something. It is also the fact that not only will sound property be acquired for a re-development area, but individual houses may be acquired for the purpose of re-conditioning, and the compensation for those individual houses is market value, subject to certain adjustments. I wish to ask what has happened to the refund basis of compensation? It is an idea for which some of us have a sneaking fondness, and which came to us on the Moyne Committee under most respectable auspices. It was sponsored, I think, by the chief valuer of the Valuation Department, and we would like to know more about the refund basis.
Turning from that to compensation on the broader ground, we have had a criticism to-day that the Bill is giving money to the property owners. I only say, in passing, that it is a very strange criticism to come from the Labour benches, that this idea originated at a party conference, because I understand that not only the ideas but the whole of the programme and the whole of the future personnel of the Labour party has to emanate from the party conference. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouths of hon. Members to accuse us of being ruled by a party caucus. I am one of the last men in the world who could be accused of holding a brief for the slum landlord. With regard to the compensation provisions they certainly appear to me to be adequate. I wonder if they might not go a little further. The Minister has made the provisions retrospective to 20th December last. Could they not go further back than that? What is the justification for that particular dividing line? Obviously, there must be a dividing line, and here, as in all these cases, you will get hard cases according to whether they fall on one side or other of the dividing line.
But is there any real reason why this provision should not be retrospective for a period of something like 12 or 18 months? The facts must be well known to the Department, and though the change might entail some administrative difficulties and some difficulties in the Department, there is a genuine sense of grievance and injustice among property owners. It might be worth the Government's while to remove those grievances, for everyone in the country, landowner, tenant and man in the street alike, is anxious to get on with the solution of the housing problem, and if you can make landowners understand that even if they are going to have their property taken from them they will have every possible consideration, they will come more than half way to meet you. The worst cases, of course, are the cases of the owner-occupier. There are many people who are occupying houses which they own and which come within the description of houses not fit for human habitation. They in the past have suffered very badly. I suppose there is not an hon. Member who in his own constituency has not had cases of poor people who have been expropriated and deprived perhaps of their life savings. Even greater concessions might be made to that very limited class of individuals. When we come to the Committee stage I hope to say something on that particular point.
There is one other class of persons who have also in the past been very seriously hurt by the absence of compensation provisions, and that is the class of shopkeepers. There might be a shopkeeper in a clearance area occupying perfectly safe property, and he finds himself suddenly deprived not of his shop but of the whole of his customers. A man who has a small general business in a slum area may find the goodwill of that business transported five or six miles away and may find himself unable to afford the prohibitive rent charged for shops on some of these housing estates. There are many other notable features in the Bill which I should like to dwell upon if time permitted but I would emphasise two features which must appeal to all who have studied the matter. The first is the provision for the consolidation of subsidies, which marks a great step forward and indeed I think marks a new era in municipal housing. The second is the proposal—based, I believe, on the findings of the Moyne Committee—contained in Part V of the Bill in regard to voluntary redevelopment. There again I hope the Minister will find that, with judicious encouragement from his Department, voluntary re-development by the owners of property themselves will in future play a large part in the history of housing.
I have referred to the Moyne Committee. That committee was appointed in March, 1933, at a time when progress in slum clearance was not so great as it is to-day and we reported in July of that year. We made what seemed to us to be suggestions for improvements in connection with housing, many of which have been incorporated in the Bill and we are grateful to the Minister for having accepted those proposals. Our terms of reference were very limited and we were not able to advise the Minister generally upon housing policy but we recommended against the adoption in this country of anything in the nature of the proposals which were then being put forward for a National Housing Board. We believed that a National Housing Board would deter private enterprise from doing the work which it was being asked to do and would retard the slum clearance schemes which were then just being put into operation. We attached great importance, however, to the formation of a Central Public Utilities Council. That apparently has largely disappeared from the Bill. The Minister let fall something which I understood to be a reference to that matter but which I fear I did not follow. I could not understand from what the right hon. Gentleman said whether such a council had in fact been formed apart from the Bill, or whether it was going to be formed, but I understand that something has happened behind the scenes though there is nothing about it in the Bill.
May I explain? I could not possibly deal with all these points at length in my speech. The voluntary housing associations and public utility societies which we have in mind have recently, I am glad to say, got together and have been taking measures for the formation of a central representative body in order to form a general centre of co-ordination, advice, control and stimulus for the public utility societies' movement—the type of central representative association which is familiar to us all and which is essential for the energy and efficiency of a movement of the sort. I believe that the formation of that body has reached an advanced stage. I do not know that it is absolutely assured but I understand that its completion is very near. What I have done in the Bill has been to take power, on the formation of such a central association as that, to assist it at any rate through the difficult years of initiation, for a period of five years, by a grant towards its expenses which is the most practical help that one can give to such a body.
I am very much obliged for the very helpful intervention of the Minister. I only hope that the central council will be formed and that we may understand what it is going to do and what its functions are going to be before we start handing out public money to it. Then there is the Central Housing Advisory Committee, a body which has no operative functions but is purely advisory. It is to advise the Minister upon any questions which he may ask it and it has some rather vague relation with the Management Commissioners. It can give advice, the most thankless of all tasks, but it has no power to make its voice heard or to see that its advice is carried out. One of the most striking speeches to-day has been that of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton). I listened to him with the deepest interest because he went half-way towards discovering the real secret. He warned us against the creation of local authority landlords and of the possibility of the day when everybody might be tenants of local authorities. That argument must be carried a stage further. Parliament has destroyed the big landlords. The old territorial landlords of feudal days are disappearing. I remember my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord Eustace Percy) saying once that the only offence of the small landlord was that of being a small landlord. That I regard as a profound contribution to the philosophy of housing. To-day we have to find something to take the place of the great private landlord of the old days. He has gone beyond recall and there are still certain things which neither the small landlord nor the local authority nor any body which we have at present can do.
I believe there is great need to-day for something in the nature of a central body, not a National Housing Board on the lines of the proposal turned down by the Moyne Committee but a central body with two definite simple functions. The slum clearance provisions and the overcrowding provisions are themselves going a long way towards solving the problem of working-class houses, but there may still be a gap. There may still be a shortage of new accommodation at cheap rents. The Government are relying on private enterprise to fill that gap and I believe that private enterprise will do it. I believe that more and more people of to-day are anxious to invest their money in housing property of that sort. What is needed is some central machinery to mobilise those investments, to act as a sort of holding concern for small private owners all over the country. Its second function would be this. Everybody is trying hard to reduce the cost of building, and one way in which it can be done is by the standardisation of fittings and materials and by a more general dealing with building costs. That cannot be done by a purely advisory body. I know that valuable work is being done in various ways by the Department and by private organisations, but you have to let the public know what you are doing. You have to make clear what is the machinery that you are employing, and I believe that a central body of the sort which I have indicated could do much more than is being done at present in the direction of standardisation, bulk purchase, and matters of that sort, to reduce the cost of building.
I cannot elaborate this point at the moment, but I believe that it follows from what the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham has said. I hope that during the Committee stage it will be found possible within the limits of the Financial Resolution to frame proposals for a central body of that sort designed only to achieve those two objects. I am not talking of the ambitious schemes of some people outside the House. I am concerned solely with the two objects of cheapening costs and mobilising private investments in house property for the working classes, and I hope when the time comes to consider the formation of such a body the Minister will look sympathetically on the proposal.
I welcome this Bill as a great step forward. It is not the last word—nobody pretends that it is—but already a humane and progressive policy of slum clearance on the part of the Minister has shown how far we may expect to go. This is the next stage forward. This is the second line of attack, the attack upon houses which are to-day overcrowded and which are such a blot upon our industrial civilisation. To-morrow night we shall give this Bill a Second Reading and put it into Committee, and there can be no doubt that great improvements may be made in Committee, and that there are points of detail here and there which are subject to criticism, but it is a model for hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who stand up, as they have stood up today, and criticise the Bill for ineffectiveness. This is a bold, vigorous, and effective step forward, and I wish it the best of success.
9.56 p.m.
I listened with great pleasure to the lucid speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol (Mr. Noel Lindsay), and I would echo his general approval of the provisions of this Bill and venture to renew the congratulations of other hon. Members to the Minister, both on the Bill and on the manner in which he presented it to the House to-day. I would add this qualification, that we shall all very naturally watch the details of administration and see precisely how they work out. I represent a city where the housing question is acute. The sudden increase of 100 per cent. in the projected programme for clearance has doubled the danger of that social injustice which might have followed the original and less spectacular programme. The situation in that city has been this, that citizens who have been encouraged to regard as an act of good citizenship owner-occupancy or the ownership of property, property which they have very conscientiously kept in repair, have been threatened recently, until the provisions of this Bill, with a compulsory surrender of that for which they have saved and paid. The hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. West) has opinions of his own as to what is brave and courageous, but to citizens who are not particularly well off to be left in that kind of plight seems neither brave nor courageous.
I am certain that in the country at large the provisions of this Bill will be welcomed with relief, though, like my hon. Friend who has just sat down, I may be tempted to move Amendments to Clause 59 when it is debated in Committee. The provisions for compensation tinder the Bill are now juster, though they are by no means excessively generous, and I repeat that we must lay the same emphasis on the details of administration as has recently been laid on the administrative details of the Unemployment Regulations, to see how they run. I should welcome the inclusion of Amendments to give a right of appeal on the part of the owner-occupier or the owner against the decision of the commissioner of the Ministry of Health.
Is the hon. Member aware of the fact that the compensation Sections in the 1930 Act were taken from the Act of 1925?
I am aware of that, but I do not believe that the right of appeal is at present sufficiently clear or safeguards the citizens against possible injustice, because there is no definition of unfitness, and it depends on an arbitrary judgment, which may vary with different localities. Therefore, I could wish to see a perfectly independent tribunal set up to deal with doubtful cases. It seems to me too serious a matter to leave exclusively under bureaucratic control, and in my view it would be well that there should be a number of independent arbitrators. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary agrees, I doubt not, that it is as important that justice should seem to be done as that justice should be done, but as things are at present it is true that that satisfaction does not prevail in the minds of owners of property. Justice would certainly indicate that there should be a right of appeal to courts of law, which should finally decide as to the fitness of property for human habitation. The absence of such a provision under the present legislation may represent the ownership of property as an offence whose stigma cannot be purged by any appeal.
Such, at all events, is the inference which some objective or detached observer might draw from the words about "Tory marching orders" which fell from the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who is invariably offensive. The right hon. Member is, not able to be present at the moment. He is perhaps refreshing himself after his rhetorical endeavours earlier in the day. Therefore, I cannot, in such detail as I could wish, criticise what he said, but while he was speaking I made an anthology of some of his choicer words and phrases. They were as follows: "Exploit" "shabby," "sackcloth and ashes," "a piece of electioneering," "butchered," "slaughter," "monstrous," "scandal," "Mussolini," "driving the people upwards." These and many other choice phrases fell from him in a spate of rhetorical insobriety. As far as one could see, the gist of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was merely to tell the House and the country at large what a grand Minister of Health he made before August, 1931.
The Ministry of Health, I am sure, cannot be surprised at any resentment on the part of citizens if suddenly the criteria of habitability are raised and, therefore, what was previously regarded as fit is suddenly included in the slum category. I have no doubt that amiable critics on the benches below and outside in the country will charge us with a desire to protect the owners of tumbledown and ramshackle dwellings long since worn out in their anti-social speculation. Such a slander is both foul and gross. Men who try to enrich themselves by those means deserve everything that is coming to them; but I have been able to observe at first hand property which is scheduled for demolition in the city that I have the honour to represent. I have seen certain property which deserves no compensation, and I have seen other property which no less emphatically does deserve compensation, and I welcome the attempt on the part of the Minister to deal with an injustice, reserving to myself, as I said, the right, in common with other hon. Members, to see how these new provisions actually work out.
There are many other provisions which will be wholly welcome in the country. In particular, there is Clause 52, concerning the improvement of present dwellings and the certificate of fitness to run for periods of from five to ten years. That is a scheme which I know will be widely and generally acclaimed in Leeds, part of which I have the honour to represent. We all in this House welcome the attack upon overcrowding, except, I think, for this apprehension:—Overcrowding and the slum problem are likely to arise in the same areas, and I am very much afraid lest the local authorities may not have the practical opportunities to deal with this question of overcrowding within the time decreed, however objectively desirable the removal of such overcrowding may be. That overcrowding must go, and go within measurable time, is indeed the conviction of everyone who has the social conditions of the people of this country at heart. I believe it is true to say that mere environment cannot by itself create either talent or genius, but these two qualities may certainly be lurking in the most terrible circumstances, only needing light and air to bring them forth. The community suffers as a whole when children are bred under conditions where their light and air are rationed or limited.
In this connexion, I would like to thank the Minister of Health for his encouragement of the provision of flats. It is axiomatic that the alternative is a general system of housing estates straggling out from the centres of our cities, blotting the countryside, and taking people miles away from the site of their work. For this reason I applaud the inclusion of Clause 28. I know that what the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said is true. There does exist among many people a prejudice against flat dwellings, but this prejudice can be got over by experience. It is a prejudice which I shared until a dozen years ago, since which time I have never lived in anything but a flat, or at least a place where there was a staircase shared by other members of the same dwelling. There must be some limit placed upon the height of working-class flats because it may not be possible to include lifts. But flats do certainly guarantee free space and fresh air, and if their elevations are carefully designed they will also guarantee a general improvement in the appearance of our cities.
It is a bitter and sad fact, which does not perhaps do our social development the greatest credit, that few of our cities are a delight to see. It is just as necessary for the citizen to see what is fine as to touch what is clean. We have heard that the Americans have long since discovered what they call the spiritual value of size. The Minister of Health, in his brilliant and lucid speech to-day, implied that they had not always controlled their expression of this appreciation, but I think that we in this country have a better sense of values and perhaps can better control our appreciation of what is beautiful. I believe that certain architectural achievements in American cities which I have seen are an aspect of a new culture which we should not ignore. We might go a little way perhaps towards copying them—the whole time controlling our tendency to build upwards. There is no need in this vital housing question for us in the Old World to miss that which the New World can teach us.
10.8 p.m.
The hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) has delivered himself of la large show of verbose gallantry in the absence of the adversary he desires to destroy. It is a kind of intemperate indulgence which seems to satisfy the hon. Gentleman. Words to him are like soap bubbles to the average boy. He likes to blow them up and see them carried away from his lips. His fastidiousness is better known to us than any other more enduring quality which he carefully keeps in reserve. In this House there are two sides and it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose, and we resent very strongly the suggestion from any part of the House that we are not entitled to deliver our attack upon the Government in our way. It is a most offensive thing that an hon. Member should be singled out for a kind of personal attack which is utterly unworthy without an opportunity having been given for that Member to be present when the attack is made. I wish to examine this Bill seriously and with no attempt to score any party or personal points at the expense of anybody in the House. The Minister of Health deplored the lack of planning in the past to which was attributed largely the present condition of overcrowding. The right hon. Gentleman reminded the House that as far back as 1850 it was an offence at law to permit overcrowding in houses, but the law has not been applied and no penalties have been imposed because of the absence of a definition and of a public conscience such as has now grown to regard overcrowding as a very dangerous and anti-social condition.
We are now offered a definition. It is given to us in two places in the Bill, first in one of the earliest Clauses, and then in a special Schedule which gives in detail the number of persons per room and takes the size of the room in relation to the population of the house. I will not now criticise that definition of overcrowding, but we think that even now the accommodation is much too low for we consider that a house is crowded when there is much less population per habitable unit than is laid down in the Bill. It is, however, an advantage which the House must welcome to have a definition of overcrowding, and the last word has not been said on the subject, because we shall be able to examine the Bill in its many details in the Committee stage. We shall therefore, reserve our criticism until we come to the definition in Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to a variety of conditions and made use of that blessed word "elasticity." Looking through the Bill, I find an absence of a definite set purpose. It sets out to obviate the evil of overcrowding, but one finds a number of conditions and qualifying Clauses, and it is possible for a large measure of overcrowding to take place without any of the penal conditions being imposed. The right hon. Gentleman said there might be temporary exemptions in certain circumstances, and that licences could be granted to occupiers to remain in houses which were in violation of the Schedules, and it appears that that licence can be given without any limit of time. That is the point that must be attended to in Committee.
The point I wish to make is that this Bill, designed to prevent overcrowding in houses, sets up a system which might result in a considerable overcrowding of sites. In one room no more than two persons are to live, and the Schedule provides that the houses shall be of certain dimensions. There has to be a floor space of 110 square feet or more for two people; 90 square feet or more but less than 110 square feet for one and a-half persons—I do not know how one and a-half persons are to live in a room; 70 square feet or more, but less than 90 square feet for one person; and 50 square feet or more, but less than 70 square feet, for half a person. That gives a total of 300 square feet for four persons, which is a very small space. We shall have an opportunity later of tackling that aspect of the matter, but we must give consideration now to the possibility of overcrowding the sites upon which these houses are to be built.
I am not a housing expert, but I recall having seen somewhere, at some time, figures showing that the average density of population in our towns works out at about 25 persons per gross acre—not the actual acreage built upon, but the gross acreage of those towns. If that be so, I can see the possibility here, in the encouragement of flat properties, of an enormous number of people being housed upon an acre of clear ground. I understand that it is seldom found possible to arrange for re-housing on the site as many people as are displaced from heavily overcrowded slums, where there are basement dwellings and narrow streets, and it is said that even with four or five storey flats it is difficult to accommodate all who are displaced, but I can see the possibility of the present figure of 25 per gross acre easily rising to 50 or 100 or 200 or 300 per gross acre under the system which is now being deliberately encouraged almost to the exclusion of other forms of housing accommodation. This overcrowding of sites is as serious, in my opinion, as the overcrowding of rooms, and we cannot escape slumdom if we put too many people on a given unit of land.
This problem of overcrowding is a problem of poverty, and the main criticism I have against the Bill is that it does nothing at all to remove the cause of overcrowding. We have had a good many political dissertations and attempts at economic interpretation in the House, and I am not going to criticise the right hon. Gentleman for what has been described as his antiquated economic ideas, but the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) really invites criticism. He challenged us on this side of the House, and, indeed, seemed rather to resent our presence in the House. He threw challenges across to us, and invited us to controversy even while he spoke. He is not here now, but I shall not be offensive in anything I say respecting him. The Noble Lord, who has been in the House for 30 years, claimed to be the first to point out here that the problem of housing is a world problem. I do not know that I have been present at every housing Debate, but I have heard scores and hundreds of speeches during the 12 or 13 years I have been in the House in which Members of my party have pointed out that undernourishment and bad housing conditions are universal and due to a universal cause. Time and time again speeches have been made here pointing out that poverty and its many manifestations are due to certain well-defined causes constantly operating in our economic life, and so the Noble Lord really does not convey any news to us when he says that this condition is due to poverty and that it is universal.
Bad housing is a twin-brother of undernourishment and poverty, and is a universal phenomenon which no politician should be allowed to ignore, and if the Noble Lord has only made this discovery recently he has been spending his time badly during the 30 years he has been in the House. He said there was poverty with bad housing in States with a diversity of political systems. He said that he had been in Italy, and that under the Fascist Government there he had seen housing conditions which he described as terrible; and that in other parts of Europe he had found, as he must have found in London, Liverpool and Glasgow, housing conditions which merit the description "terrible" in its full sense. The Noble Lord warned his Tory friends, and I hope they took notice of it, that the times are changing. He told them that during the 30 years he had been in this House he had never seen tendencies so plainly evident as they were to-day. He warned his Tory friends that they had been driven really to the last ditch, where they must make a stand in defence of the rights of property. That is the lesson which the Noble Lord wished to convey to those on his side of the House. He gave the warning that we on this side of the House are preparing here and outside an attack on the privileges of property which betokens danger to those who possess property. The right hon. Gentleman has relied too much on that last ditch. He is afraid that the worker might get a free house and a lot of other privileges unless those who defend property in this House waken up in time and join with the right hon. Gentleman in a last-ditch resistance to this Socialist progress which has enveloped the activities of the Department which the Minister serves, and work secretly to undermine the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman is a representative.
The right hon. Gentleman to-day described himself as a landowner. He spoke not so much as Member of Parliament for Horsham as property owner in the East of London. I am told that the property is not of a very high order. He said, "It is as property owner that I wish to defend myself," and he said that he would have to watch that his property rights were not taken away from him. Right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House must really decide. If, as they say, property is of less value, the worker is unable to pay rent and returns from property investments are not high, they must fight the battle, not with us on this side of the House but with their fellows who defend the capitalist system and who are responsible for the low wages paid to workpeople and for the large profits made in industry. It is because a large proportion of the worker's earnings are taken away from him before he comes home to pay rent that the worker's rent-paying capacity is so low. There is no possibility of a larger payment for rent and of larger earnings from house property until the purchasing power of the working people is increased very considerably. There is no suggestion in any part of the Bill that that fact has been appreciated.
We warn the Government that subsidies are an indispensable condition of family life in this country and an indispensable corollary of the low purchasing power which the workpeople are allowed to possess. We welcome the Minister's reconversion to the advantage of subsidising houses, and we now wish that he would turn to the general problem which lies farther behind the Bill. We have here not a plan to reorganise the housing system of the country but simply a temporising Measure, a kind of patchwork which I doubt will ever come into full operation. It is a patchwork Measure designed to relieve overcrowding in certain small areas, and it will do nothing to improve the general conditions of housing to which the Minister referred in his speech this afternoon. We are told that 2,000,000 people are living two families to a house; there is a deficiency of 1,000,000 houses to remove that aspect of overcrowding, because if there are two families sharing one house, that is 100 per cent. overcrowding of that house. The ideal number is one family, one house, and until that position is reached there is a mass of overcrowding to which the Bill makes no difference at all.
Another point to which I should like to refer was touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland), namely, the absence of any provision for co-ordinating the problem of transport between people's work and their places of residence with the housing conditions in the country. One finds in the Bill a lot of small detailed provisions which might be of assistance in relieving distress here and there, but no suggestion that in the Ministry of Health there is a body of people who understand the problem of housing, who have a housing plan in their minds, and have had it before them in considering this Bill. There is no suggestion of a plan anywhere. When one looks around the country one sees townships and garden estates growing up haphazard, in the very condition which the Minister ascribed to the housing of the last 80 years. Sites are appropriated haphazard for building purposes, without any suggestion of a scheme from beginning to end.
Who decides where the people are to live in this country? Who decides that they should be allowed to live near their place of employment? I very much resent the idea that they always have to be allowed to live near their place of employment. If any hon. Member worked at a tanyard, or a gasworks, or in any of our less agreeable occupations, would he like to live near to that place? I think that the further away one is from occupations of that kind, provided one can be transported in a short time and at little expense, the better. In my district, in earlier and more prosperous days, we planned a series of what we called dormitory towns, where men could be removed from the narrow mining valleys where the shafts were situated, and, by suitable transport, taken 10 or 12 miles away. That was held to be an ideal system for housing our people and making it possible for them to acquire the maximum industrial advantage coupled with a maximum of residential and home comfort. That seems now to have been altogether abandoned. The idea now seems to be that building must take place where building has been, that old sites must be cleared and new property erected on the old sites. There is no idea of spreading out building, of forming separate townships and allocating to each its quota of industry suitable to the district where the building operations take place. The Bill does not contain a line on this subject, and I am entitled to assume that no one has given it a thought.
We are not taken into the confidence of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman made a good speech, which I admired, but he said nothing about these points, nothing to suggest that they had been thought over, considered, or rejected because of other considerations. He spoke as if the problem did not exist at all. It is important, however, that the House should know whether the sites of future housing activities are to be chosen by the local authorities or by speculators, whether the people are to live in townships by deliberate plan, or whether they are just to be allowed to go where the speculator chooses a site for making profits and drags the people after him. That is a very important matter indeed.
I come now to the question of finance, upon which I do not propose to speak in great detail. I have said that the Minister has come back to the principle of subsidies. We have a very large number of unemployed people, whose incomes are limited still further by what was done in this House yesterday and the day before, whose purchasing power is only about half the income that they would get if they were employed. The 2,000,000 who are unemployed command, on an average, the income of only 1,000,000 people, and they are not exempt from the obligation of living in houses and paying rent. The average purchasing power of the man at work is very low indeed. I am almost sure that I am safe in saying that 75 per cent. of our people earn less than £2 a week throughout the year. That is a very small purchasing power indeed.
Subsidies have to be paid, but we find in the Bill that they are to be paid, not to find elbow-room for building and living not to create new housing estates under good conditions, but to clean up the most objectionable mess that we have in the heritage of the last century, and to build on the same sites very valuable properties indeed. Subsidies are to be given to put valuable properties on valuable sites, the effect of which will be to the very great comfort of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham perhaps, but very greatly to the public detriment in the future. The effect will be to build valuable properties and very considerably to raise site values. It is a subsidy to assist landlords and to maintain site values. We have heard to-day of land being purchased for buildings of this kind at £3,000 an acre, which works out at an average of £150 per annum in interest alone at 5 per cent. I do not know whether at any time we shall be told the number of flats to be built on an acre of land. Nothing is said in the Bill. But in a building of three storeys one can well conceive the possibility of 35 flats on a single floor and 75 on three floors. [ Interruption. ] I thought that would be the figure, and a five-storey building might run up to 100.
Sixty or 70.
That is some amelioration of the conditions. It is a slightly smaller number than I imagined, and I am glad to find that there is to be more air space around the flat. I dislike very much the idea of forcing large numbers of people to live in flats five storeys high without lifts and the conveniences that we get when we usually go up that height. But we are still to have a very large number of homes on an acre of land. I still think, with these corrected figures, that the population on an acre of land will be too much even under these conditions.
The right hon. Baronet the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) called attention to the lack of reference to any control over prices. There is no building system at all in this. It is simply a Bill which gives out money to enable people to build houses in any conditions they choose. There is to be no supervision and no insistence on standards of any kind. They are to build, as has been done for a very long time, at any measure of profit that they can obtain for themselves and leave the consequences to the tenant. I think that the Government are really missing a golden opportunity. Public opinion is very much further advanced than they imagine. It is much less afraid of Socialistic ideas than the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and much more in favour of Socialistic ideas than the Government imagine. If they believe that they can ignore this problem of housing, and that in order that it can be solved by private enterprise all you have to do is to dish out subsidies and help landlords and building contractors, they will be seriously disappointed when the people come to pronounce upon this Measure, and Measures of this kind. They are missing a great opportunity. If they want to remain a Government in this country and be known as the National Government, they ought to take this great opportunity of embarking upon a national building programme, with planning at the bottom, control of prices and the distribution of housing sites and all that kind of thing. There will be no opposition from this side of the House. The responsibility lies entirely with the Government. The difficulty is not on this side of the House or upon any people we represent in the country, but upon the rich friends of that side of the House who attend their conferences and dictate to them here from time to time.
I do not know whether something can be done in the Bill to deal with the scandal of suburban building. It is a terrible scandal in London. There are companies operating in the City at the present time. Their financial methods are exceedingly ingenious and novel. The Minister of Health said that his Bill was novel, but if he examines the financial methods of some of these companies he will see how really novel and ingenious are their methods. There are people who are building houses. They advertise in the daily Press and have their advertisement attractively set out in appealing language, with sometimes a little poetry to all attractiveness to the advertise- ment, giving the prices and conditions under which an ordinary working man can acquire his house. The price may be £600, £700 or £750. He is told that he can obtain immediate possession freehold, and that there is security for him for all time. Working with the building companies are the building societies we hear so much about, working hand in glove, joined together in the enterprise of fleecing the would-be-tenants and people who buy houses; passing on jerry buildings under the pretence of sound workmanship; and building new slums, exchanging new slums for old.
People who are driven to desperation in their search for housing accommodation in this country take the bait and buy these houses, and to-day there are thousands of disillusioned purchasers of houses around this city. It is a growing scandal, and I should like to know from the Minister whether anything can be done in this Bill to prevent that kind of procedure from being carried out? We should stop this ramp before it is too late. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Horsham talked about the political corruption of people on local authorities. If any local authority in this country had been guilty of the conduct of any of these companies they would have been held up to public opprobrium for all time, they would have been brought under the law, and the Minister of Health would have had something to say to them. I hope that he will have something to say to the people who are now gaining the confidence and getting the money of a large number of innocent people by false pretence and by fraud. We shall have something to say to the Minister on that point, and I hope that he will have something to say to us..
Now that the Minister has acknowledged the principle of the subsidy as an indispensable condition for the building of houses, and that there should be help from public funds, we would like him to have regard not only to the numerical production of houses but to a national scheme for the rational distribution of population and industry. Electricity is playing a considerable part, and so is the new transport system which is growing around us. It is now possible to convey power to industries and for industries to be carried on under conditions entirely different from those that prevailed 50 years ago. An industrial town can be a bright, clean, cheerful place to-day, and we would like the Minister, now that he has acknowledged the principle that houses cannot be built by private enterprise, to go one step further. If public money is to be used, let us get full value for it. Let us get the thing properly done, with well-constructed houses, new industries, broad streets, adequate open spaces which can be provided for the people. It would mean very much for his Department as the Department responsible for public health.
If we wish to breed the spirit of revolt and discontent, let us house our people in the congested areas and keep them there. Then we shall get the spirit of revolt germinating and we shall find trouble among the citizens of the country in years to come. If the Minister wishes to proceed rationally to work out the economic problems from which we suffer, of which housing is only one symptom, we must provide decent houses and social conditions. The Bill must be amended in Committee and we shall have a great many Amendments to submit. We find such considerable shortcomings in the Bill that we shall be compelled to oppose it, although we have no desire to obstruct building or impede the reconstruction of the homes of our people. Nobody wants a single person to live in overcrowded conditions, but we do not think that this contribution of the Government meets the situation. Therefore, we shall oppose it when we come to the Division Lobby.
With regard to the licences that may be granted to the local authorities for exceeding the standard, the hon. Member said that there was no time limit. There is. In Clause 5 (3) he will find that the time limit of those licences is 12 months.
10.43 p.m.
The Bill is designed to deal with a problem that has been very urgent for more than 15 years and one which we have almost entirely failed to solve. When the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) attacked the Government this afternoon, he took no account of the virtual failure of all the housing legislation passed since the War to fulfil the purpose which it was intended by Parliament to fulfil. Under that legislation a large number of houses were built, at very considerable cost not infrequently at excessive rents, and not always destined to be inhabited by the class of persons for whose benefit the subsidy was intended. Very little had been done until last year to remove the positive evil of slum clearance or overcrowding. The problem has not become less severe by the passage of time.
I do not complain that the Government have not introduced any other housing legislation of this sort within the last three years, because they have devoted their time to establishing the most favourable conditions for a housing campaign of far greater magnitude than anything which we could possibly have contemplated before. The most favourable of those conditions, the lowering of building costs, the cheapening of money and the strengthening of public credit, have been the direct result of the financial policy which the right hon. Member for Wakefield opposite so vehemently attacked. One would have thought from listening to the right hon. Member for Wakefield that fewer houses were being built now than during his own period of office. I am speaking from memory, but I think in the year ending September last the total number of houses constructed in this country was 309,000, a new record in Great Britain, and if you compare that with the rate of construction in 1930 and 1931, when the right hon. Member for Wakefield was at the Ministry of Health, you will find that the average for those two years was about 180,000, that is 360,000 for the two years, so that the present rate of construction is already more than 60 per cent. in advance and is rapidly approaching double the amount of house construction which prevailed when the right hon. Gentleman was in office. If you take subsidised houses alone, the figure for last year was 52,000. The right hon. Member talked a great deal about the subsidised houses of which the Government deprived the country last year. The number of subsidised houses built was 52,000, exactly the same as in 1930, and not far short of the figure for 1931 when all these subsidies were in full operation.
What was the effect of these subsidies, whose abolition the right hon. Member complained was effected by the Housing Act of 1932? These subsidies were not mainly being applied for the purpose of building new houses to replace cleared slums, nor were they mainly being applied for the construction of new houses to relieve overcrowding. They were mainly applied for the building of working-class houses of the better type, for the better paid worker, to meet the normal need of our expanding population, a work which could equally well have been done and carried out by private enterprise. The result was that you had private enterprise and local authorities competing with one another in the same field, so that housing costs were kept artificially high while the rebuilding to which Parliament had desired local authorities to devote their attention was not being carried out, slums were not being cleared and overcrowding was not being specifically relieved. The policy of the Government is to concentrate these subsidies into directions in which we desire them to have effect, so that slum clearances and the relief of overcrowding will be proceeded with in addition to the greatly increased housing achievements by private enterprise, and that local authorities and private enterprise will no longer compete with each other in the same field but will deal with their own particular problems.
The Minister described the Government's policy as being divided into two stages, first, slum clearance and then overcrowding. I should prefer to describe it as a policy of three stages. First, the liberation of private enterprise, that has already been achieved and has resulted in a record number of working-class houses being built. The next stage is that of slum clearance, which has now been launched with outstanding success. There was certainly nothing in the speech of the right hon. Member for Wakefield which gave me any reason to think that the Government would have any less success in a policy which is on almost exactly similar lines to remove the evil of overcrowding. I confess that I did have some curiosity to see what line would be taken in regard to this Bill by hon. Gentlemen opposite, because I am not very familiar with Front Bench tactics, but I really was astonished to hear the violent outburst of Olympian wrath which was poured out against the Government by the right hon. Member for Wakefield. I cannot find anything in the Bill which could account for his indignation. I suspect that it may perhaps not be very different from the divine anger of Juno against all the other gods when her daughter Hebe was removed from the office of cup-bearer, and replaced by the capable Ganymede.
The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) has certainly been more moderate, and there are many of his criticisms with which some of us will agree. There is everything to be said for having a standard which we know to be practical, which we know can be enforced, and which will result in immeasurable improvement in the housing conditions of large numbers of people. When we come to consider the new housing policy which the Government have developed—and I would emphasise that it is a new development, and that they are not going back on their policy of 1932—there is one demand—the first demand—which we must make, and which I am sure the Minister will be anxious to meet. It is the demand for celerity in the execution of the programme which we are imposing on the housing authorities. Rapidity of execution must come first. It may be useful to examine anything that we may find in the existing state of the law which may be likely to hamper or delay the rapid execution of housing schemes. If I may judge from representations which I have been receiving for more than a year, both from my constituency and other quarters, I would say that the principal danger is that we may give the impression that our actions may inflict some hardship or injustice on certain classes of house owners, more particularly on those who have done their best to maintain their property in a decent condition, and who may fear that their claims may be ruthlessly overlooked in the general demolition of some large area in which their property happens to be situated.
The concessions of the Government have been criticised this afternoon from one angle by the hon. Member for Newcastle Central (Mr. Denville) and the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. N. Lindsay) and from the opposite angle by the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. West). Perhaps their criticisms may to some ex- tent cancel each other out, but I am more interested in these concessions from the point of view of their effect on the rapidity of building. If I may take the House back to the speech of the hon. Member for North Lambeth, he represented that the Government's proposals were likely to delay housing schemes. He particularly complained of Clause 60, which he said would cause the London County Council to delay its slum clearance work for six months. If that be the case it is very regrettable indeed. I hope very much that the hon. Member or the London County Council, whoever it is, may prove to be mistaken. I am bound to say that as I read Clause 60 the concession in it could not be applied unless by reason of the action of the local authority itself. Therefore, I cannot see how this provision could hold up for six months a slum clearance scheme on which the authority has already decided to embark. I think there is more to be said in the opposite sense, and that the danger of delay is not that it may arise from the necessity of paying compensation, but from the fear of local authorities that they may be inflicting injustice on their own citizens, and their difficulty in assessing the claims which may be made on their behalf. I am glad to say that on reading the Bill it seems to me that the provisions made by the Minister have gone a very long way to meet the legitimate anxiety which has been expressed.
I have no time to advert to those concessions, which have been clearly expounded by the Minister. The most important one, of course, is that which gives special compensation for a well maintained house. That is an entirely new provision. The hon. Member for Newcastle Central (Mr. Denville) has now gone, but it seems to me that the case of which he made so much must be covered by the provisions in the Bill. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) pointed out that there was no provision for appeal in respect of improved areas. I extend that observation to the assessment of claims for the well maintained house. This is a matter upon which anxiety exists and may develop. The main opposition to these proposals for concessions to property owners has come from the benches opposite, but I am not anxious now to reply to them because I think it of more importance to consider the criticisms from an opposite point of view, which are made possibly with more substance. I think the Minister has gone a very long way to meet those criticisms in advance, and that he has done well to do so. I conclude by congratulating him on the character of this Bill as a whole, and by expressing a hope that the Government will be determined, as I am sure they are, after they have spent three years in preparing the ground, to build with every expedition on those foundations which they have so successfully laid.
Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[ Dr. Addison. ]
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
Consolidation Bills
Ordered,
"That the Lords Message [29th January] communicating the Resolution, 'That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament,' be now considered."—[ Sir F. Thomson. ]
Lords Message considered accordingly.
Resolved,
"That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution."—[ Sir F. Thomson. ]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
The remaining orders were read, and postponed.
Adjournment
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Sir F. Thomson. ]
Adjourned accordingly at Eleven o'Clock.